The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1901-01-09
MUNICIPAL LIGHTING PLANT

The Seattle Gas 3 Electric CO. has
won the tirst point In It's lcgai con-
test with the city. II has secured
from Judge Hanford decision that
the federal court has jurisdiction,
Judge Burke. attorney for the gas
company. expected this result when
he secured the passage Of the now
famous ordinance attacking the al
legged franchise Of the gar people
aud their rights to DO business. AZ
shown Ia the Star at the time. this
ordinance was warded 49, as 60 Sc
cure the greatest legal ADVANTAGE to
the gas company, which was the
client % Judge burke. Moreover.
this ordinance was passed without
the consent or knowledge OF Cor
poration Counsel Humphrey. having
been quietly introduced lnto TIE city
council without any preliminary hint
as 70 what was contemplated. Then
Immediately after Judge Hurke's
ordinance was signed By the mayor.
the judge went into the federal court
AZ the earliest possible moment, and
sued on his ordinance. This fact was
the more surprising because Cor
poratson Counsel Humphrey had
stated that he would go into the
courts against the gus company. and
II was understood that the cityss ac-
ton would DC taken In the state
courts.
Corporation Counsel Humphrey. In
his demurrer. argued yesterday. fall
ed to convince judge Hanford that
the ordinance In question was not
sufficient ground Tor action in the
United States courts. The Judge
held thai the ordinance was alto
gsiA-4r sufficient.
n ~ q well established point In
Law that Jurisdiction once obtaine 1.
always rests In the court which OBJ
tanned u. Hence the federal courts
will persixtentiy claim Jurisdiction
in this particular case. although Il
remains 10 be seen as 20 what aspect
the quo warranto proceedings In the
state court may develop.
Whether the Seattle Gas q Flee
trio Co. wins or ioses in Judge Han.
ford's court. an appeal 10 tho Unit
ed States supreme court will follow,
and then several years must drag by
before a anal settlement o. the. mat
tiers al issue can be had. In the
meantime the gas company can 60
on charging s. a thousand for its
product. and reapinx extortionate
proats. The only sure way of check.
mating its game IL for the city 20
take steps 20 establish IL own light
ting plant Municipal ownership OF
an opposition plant. with gas at 81
per thousand. win be the remedy.
TN catr already owns It's own wa
Ter ,lrstesn. Why should II DOT own
SIS manlciSa al kas plantf The great
~asectlon llrged b. some to munic-
fpsl o~ne-hip Of public utilities. Is
that II creNtss more places for poll
teal ~orkNSs: bat this objection
could scarcely SLY 70 >atsr o. rs
plants owned By the city. inasna och
as few employees are necaSsry fer
either.
The Star has carefully sought to
ssoure a concensus Of opinion from
Ill classes Of citizens upon the ques-
tzen Of municipal ownership Of a gas
plant In Seattle. and finds there Is a
growing feeling IN favor of the prop
osifion-
There u absolutely nothing at the
present time 20 prevent a move for
the establishment OF a municipal
ssch an undertaking could be enter
Id upon. II would be necessary for
the city council TO secure full and
accurate data concerning municipal
lighting plants In other cities. the
post Of their erection. maintenance.
operation. etc.