The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-09-11
ATTACKED ON
MANY GROUNDS
FIGHT AGAINST OLD FORGE
LIGHT CONTRACT.
Judge Carpenter Engaged in Hear
ing Testimony in the Case of Bur
CESS Rees Against the Lackawanna
Electric Light, Heat and Power
Company-It is Claimed the ordi-
nance and Contract Are Irregular
and That There Was Bribery in
Connection with It.

Judge Carpenter, in equity court, is
engaged in hearing testimony in the
injunction case brought by Burgess II.
Willis Rees, of Old Forge, to restrain
the Lackawanna. Electric Light, Heat
and Power company from proceeding
with the installation of an electric
light plant in that municipality.
on January S, 1901, the company
made proposal to light the borough
at the rate of $72.50 per year for arc
lights OF 425 volts, and $40 per year for
incandescent lights of 81 candle power
on the same day the council accepted
the proposal. Burgess Recs vetoed the
ordinance accepting the proposal and
returned 1t, with his reasons for the
veto, so he alleges, at the next regu-
lar meeting.
The council passed the ordinance
over the burgess veto at the meeting
Of February 4, 1901, and directed the
president of council to execute a con-
tract with the light company, which
was done. The company proceeded to
install an electric light plant and the
burgess went into court for an in
junction. a preliminary injunction
was granted with a rule to make it
permanent, and on this rule evidence
is now being taken. T.. G. Newcomb
represents the plaintiff and I. II. Burns
the defense.
The application for the injunction is
based on the allegations that the veto
and accompanying reasons were not
entered in writing on the minutes as
The law requires: that the ordinance
was not regularly advertised: that the
ordinance and certificate Of the secre-
| tary were not recorded in writing in
| the ordinance book, as the law re-
| quireS, but entered by pasting in a
printed copy; that the contract was not
signed by the burgess, who, it is
claimed, has the exclusive right to
execute such an instrument; that no
attempt was made to secure competi-
] tive bids, and that the passage Of the
| ordinance was tainted with bribery.
The defense makes answer that the
burgess failed TO return the vetoed
| ordinance in time to make its veto
| operative, thus allowing the measure
| to become a law without his approval
even though it had not been passed
over his veto; that the power to exc
| cute a contract of this kind is vested
in the councils and can be delegated
to any officer, the president of select
council being selected in this case
1t is denied that the ordinance was
not duly advertised and recorded; that
no competitive bids We're secured, and
that there was any bribery in connec.
tion with the passage of the ordinance
| Secretary J. J. Judge was the only
witness examined yesterday. He wac
| n min in "a Ji,c hn
ceedings relative to the passage OF
the ordinance.
| He claimed the entries in the ordi.
nance books were regularly made. ac.
cording to law, and presented the book
| as confederation. The plaintiff viii
try to show by Burgess Rees, William
Rcpp and others that the ordinance
was pasted in originally and that the
entry in writing was made after the
| signing of the contract. Secretary
Judge also claimed there were thre,
bids secured for the lighting contract
/ one from the AVoca company. one from
| the Moosic company and the othe,
from the Lackawanna company. Mr.
| Ncwcomb tried to bring out that tn,
first two bids were secured severa
months before the accepted one wa.
preferred and not considered as beinl
in competition with the latter. Secre
tary Judge did not have the first tw,
bids with him and could not remembe
when they were received.
The case will be proceeded with thi
morning and is likely to take up tn,
whole day.
The cases of J. r. Gilroy agains
Freeman Larned ct al, and Benjamin
:. Robinson against the Scranton an,
Pittston Railway company were con
tinued on account of the death of tn
brother OF Attorney II. NJ. Hannah
who was engaged in both cases.