The sun., 1900-02-16
Friday, February 16, 1900.

THE refusal of the Street and Sewer
Directors to confer with the special COM
mittee of City Council, should not deter
Council from its proposed inquiry into
street and sewer affairs. There are two
very important reasons for pushing this
inquiry.
First, there is need of it because the
people are dissatisfied with the work OF
the Street and Sewer Directors, and if
there is good cause for this dissatisfac-
tion it should be known in defense OF
public interests, and if there is no good
reason for it, that truth should be
demonstrated in defense of the Street
and Sewer Directors.
Second, it should be ascertained
whether the Street and Sewer Directors
constitute subordinate or a supreme
body-whether they or the people, own
the town. If Council can evolve direct
and satisfactory answers to the implied
Questions in this statement, it will do
good work.
There is legal way in which the in
dividual citizen may start the kind OF an
investigation that is apparently needed
in this case, through the courts.
That ought to be good and effec-
tuai way of doing such things
1t may be that it is good way, and eff
fectual enough if concluded. Unfortu-
nateiy, in this State, such things begun,
appear to take on perpetual existence;
they never end. If, therefore, Council
can find way around the obstacles that
bar this strictly legal way Of procedure,
it will do good work, and aid in de-
termining matters of Importance both to
the parties personally interested and to
the public.
1t is fitting that Council should become
the champion of public interests; that il
should also be defense Of individual
citizens against wrong inflicted by ignor-
ant or over jealous public servants. II
is surely right that Council should not
be either an ignorant or unwilling party
to intended injury of individuals by pub
Tic servants, particularly when the facts
indicate that the pafty-officer or Off
cers-intending and attempting injury
to private citizen, are subordinate tt
City Council In this matter we have
case in point.
The injunction suit restraining th'
Oxy-Hydrogen Company from the us
OF the streets as provided in its charter
was instituted in the name of eth
Mayor and Counci'' OF the city. Git
Council is clearly party to this pro
ceeding and ought to have some authorit.
in the case. 1t ought to be able to refus
to be party to case in which botl
public and private interests are bein
outraged, and to be able to make its re
fusal effective. 1t should not be party t
useless, prolonged and costly litigation
nor should it lend its name to the in
Fiction of wrong upon the individua
for no public benefit, and PARTICULAR
when the infliction of that wrong carrie
with it the possibility of great loss to tn
city-the public-in damages in the ii
innate adjustment of the dispute. The
is what is being done in the Oxy-Hy
drogen case.
AS pertinent here, anent the propose
inquiry by Council, we would r.
spectfuly suggest that Council il
quire about special Council fet
in the Oxy.Hydrogen case-wl
retained, and who pays Counsello
Hillee and Spruance, and the gro
amount of fees paid. Ii these gentleme
are being paid out OF the public funt
the people have right to know it, ar
City Council as the tax levying authorit
OF the city, ought to know it.
Another question of almost quite
equal Importance, is that OF the contin
ance OF this suit, to which Council
party. the oxy-Hydrogen suit. Will
be ended during the nineteenth centur
or continue through the twentieth ce
turyr
The apparent possibility of the latt
contingency, makes the Council +
question one OF Importance to the cit
and if decided that way, will afford
valuable suggestion for young attorne
generations OF them can afford to pi
pare especially for this case.
City Council should investigate.
---.-3r-----
"Therc Are Others"
~