Little Falls weekly transcript. (Little Falls, Morrison Co., Minn.) 1894-19??, 1900-06-19

treso tion, q cop ~ which, marked
\ xhibit n IA n alta hed Us said bill,
.consti tinted avalid and binding con
tract ' between the sAid city 81 Little
Falls and said Fuller and stoll, \ and
their sassigns, which rights, privi-
5)eges. franchises and contract rights
were duly transferred Ia ana vested
In the comp ainant ~ the said Fuller
and Stoll, ~ the inst rument, copy
gof which marked ..Exh ibit b. IL at
5tached to said bill. As the COM
within the. time provided
Tor nsaid ordinances. constr ucted,
completed and had in use the system
.of water works, ID all thing "a speci-
fled n said ordinance and to the
:satisfact ion and acceptance 81 the
council o. said city, and has ever
;since, compiled IN all things with said
ordinances and 3said contracts, and
all subsequent resolutions Of said
council got forth ID said bill respect
ing additional hydrants and; water
service, the said city Ii obligated to
pay therefor, ut the rates provided
for BY said ordinance and contracts,
AMI the mutual obligations Of the
complainant and Of said city win
continue to the end Of the term pf
thirty years; fixed BY said ordinances.
Similar conclusions follow In all
respects from the facts shown in ~
gard to complainant's electric light
plant, and the franchises, contracts,
construction, maintenance and fur
nishtng Of light to the city, and the
continuing obligations resting upon
the complainant and said city during
the term Of twenty years provided
Tor in the contract between them of
August q, 1890, a copy of which
marked Exhibit U'' ID ATTACHED to
said bill. >.5 :2S s:: # 8 .s vi a.
i An ordinance passed by q munic-
ipal council within the scope Of it's
powers, has the force OF law. Y I
Dill. municipal corporation S3O8.
The common council of Little Falls,
having the power. to contract for
the supply Of water and light to the
city and it's inhabitants, could law
fully grant by ~ ordinance such
franchises In respect to the occupa-
ton and use Of it's streets and public
grounds as are necessary or conven-
lent for the construction, mainten-
5ance and use 81 the works, appliances
and Observation-Disclosures, by which such
supplies must, be furnished In
Walla Walla VS.. Walla Walla Water
Co., 172 q. =. l. g., the court after re-
.ferring to several decided cases, adds
s"It is true that in these cases the.
franchise was granted directly by
the state Legislature, but it is equal
sly clear that such franchises may be
bestowed upon corporation 4 by
municipal horities, provided the
Night to do 80 ia given by their.
charters. State legislatures may.
not only exercise their sovereignty
directly, but may delegate such por-
lions of it to inferior legislative
bodies as, in their Judgment, is de-
sirable for local purposes And
such grant of franchise, after per-
,fQrmance by the grantee, is a con-
tract protected by the constitution
Of the United States against state
legislation to impair it. - 4
I New Orleans Gas Co. vs. Louisi-
ana Light Co.. 115 u. 8. $50. \;
. New Orleans Water Works VS..
Rivers, lis u. s. 674.. f. r., o. -
: ss:s5 Louisville Gas Co. VS., Citizens
Gas Co., liz q. 8. 8S3. - A. b
E.5s5I Walla Walla vs.. Walla Walla
Water Co.. .172 U. s.. L.. s +: %s5
\ State legislation includes Of course
legislation by municipal bodies
created BY the state, with powers 81
Legislation for local purposes IN.
the case last above cited, at page 10,
the court says: IS N n: Y: . y,
''We know of no case In which 1T
has been held that an ordinance al
legged to impair q prior contract with
|agas or water company, did not
create case under the consti tuition
and laws Of the United States. = I i
|.s IL follows therefore that the or,
dinance eek. "J''@ attached to the
bill) passed by the common council
[oia Little Falls April 4, 1895, Tower the.
veto q the mayor) purporting tos
repeal the prior ordinances (Ex. "A'''
and Ex. i ''B..'') which granted the
franchises under which the water.
plant was constructed, az well as
the solution lex. .N'' attached to