The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-01-24
THE LIGHT OF ANOKA
The Taxpayers Attempt To Cancel
Lighting Contract Fails.
MUNICIPAL POWERS DEFINED
Long Life Of Il Contract Does Not
Necessarily Invalidate-Su-
,preme Court Decisions.

The attempt of Edward l., Reed and
other taxpayers of Anoka to secure the
cancellation of the city's lighting con-
tract fails, according to a supreme court
decision handed down to-day. The con-
tracts were made in 1889. for thirty-one
years, covering waterworks and electric
light. The city pays $64 a year for
hydrants. The taxpayers claim the con-
tracts are void on their face, as fixing the
rate Of compensation for so long time.
Despite its ruling in Minneapolis case
that city council can not make contracts
for a longer period than the life of the
body, the supreme court now sustains the
validity of the Anoka contracts. The
syllabus is as follows:
Edward L. Reed ct al, appellants, VS.. the
city Of Anoka ct al, defendants: Anoka
Waterworks, Electric Light and Power COM
pany, respondents.
Ftrst-The charter of the city of AnOka
confers upon the municipality, in substance,
ta) power to make and establish public pumps,
wells. cisterns and hydrants and to provide
for and control the erection of waterworks for
the supply of water for the city and it sin
habitants; (b) power to provide for lighting
the city with electricity, gas or other means,
and to control the erection of any works for
that purpose. and to grant to any corporation
that purpose Held, that such provisions of
the charter invest the municipality with pow
er and authority to enter into contracts with
private individuals for the purposes stated.
Second-Entering into such contracts and
granting a franchise to individuals does not
involve an exercise the part of the munich
palty of its Legislative or governmental func-
tions, as respects the rates and charges to be
paid the grantees for performance OF the
contracts or otherwise, but only its proprie-
tary or business powers; and the rules and
principles of law applicable to contracts and
transactions between individuals apply there
to.
Third-The authority given municipalities tC
enter into contracts of this character confers
upon the local authorities large discretionary
powers. with the exercise of which courts WI!
not Interfere unless clearly abused; unless
contracts made by them are unreasonable, in
equitable and unfair.
Fourth-Contracts of the nature of those ir
question in this action are not. merely from
the fact that they cover period of thirty lone
wears definitely and finally fix the rates anc
charges to be paid the grantees for the full
period prima facie void as unreasonable ant
unfair They are prima facie valid. and. II
the absence OF a showing Of unreasonableness
must be upheld.
Fifth-The question whether the necessities
of a municipality justify a contract for so Ion:
a period of time, and the fairness and reason
ableness of the term: thereof, are addressed
to the sound judgment of the municipal off
GERS; and as such officers are presumed to &C
within the scope of their authority and TO
the best interests of the municipality the.
represent the burden to impeach the contrac
is upon the person who calls it in question.