The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-06-12
CITY CONTRACT TENURES
LEGAL QUESTION THAT MAY IN
vOLyE THE MUNICIPALITY.
City Attorney Joss Has Been Asked
for an Opinion by the Mayor
City Affairs.

A legal question involving all Of the city
contracts that have a tenure in excess Of
one year has been brought sharply before
the city administration. The mayor has
asked City Attorney Joss TO investigate
whether the city has power TO make con-
tract for a longer period than year. If
Mr. Joss should decide that 1t has. none Of
the present contracts will be affected; If he
decides that IL has not the power all the
contracts may be attacked They are the
lighting. sanitary. water and sweeping con-
tracts. which call for an expenditure by the
city annually of about 100000.
1t is asserted that the question has been
raised by persons interested in the electric
light contract. Ground for the contention
is found in the decision of the Supreme
Court in the Sun Vapor Light case, which
was taken 10 that court by the city under
Mayor Denny's last administra ton. The
Sullivan administration preceding had
made a contract with the Sun company for
a period of five years. Payment Of the
bills under this contract for the second
year was refused by Controller Trusler.
and ]. A. VAIN, receiver of the Sun COM
pany. brought suit. The lower court
tanned the contract as valid, but the Su-
preme Court, Judge McCabe writing the de-
cision, held the contract invalid, largely
because the contract had not been ratified
by the Council and no money had been ap-
propriated TO pay the claims. II is not con-
tended that the court explicitly held the
power OF the city limited TO one-year con-
tracts, but inference OF this character is
taken from Judge McCabe's language and
suggestions.
CHARTER PROVISION
1t is asserted that Section 81 of the city
charter prohibits making any contract or
agreement that is binding If the money to
discharge the same is not already appro-
priated Section SO of the charter author
ICES just such contracts as are now in ex-
istence and are questioned and requires
for franchises and special contracts con-
current action by the Council. In the past
the law department of several administra-
tions has held that a contract covering
period of ten years for which the city pays
annually. is really not a contract for the
gross sum and for the full time. but con-
tract for one-tenth of it. City attorneys
have followed a decision by Judge Elliott
when the Supreme Court in the case of
the town of Sullivan. 1t attempted 10 make
an electric light contract for a period OF
ten years under a law authorizing cities to
so contract The contract was attacked
and Judge Elliott held then the city was
bound really for only one-tenth of the
amount yearly. and that the law re-
sponsive to a necessity. without such
provisions companies could not undertake
TO equip expensive light plants on a yearly
basis.
1t is understood that the city admins
tration will hew close 10 the line Mr.. Joss
may lay down. 1t is not known what his
opinion OF the law is, but he is quoted as
having tntimsted that the question was a
serious one and would involve careful
study. II was complex. The administra
ton leans to the theory that the righr of
the city 10 contract for a longer period than
one year will be sustained in spite OF the
differences in the Sun Vapor Light Com
pany's case. 1t is not likely, IL is argued
tracts involving large investments without
having been advised of the safety of them
1t is also pointed out that analogy is found
in the issuance of bonds by the city These
provide for the payment of interest when
no appropria ton has been made.
! SITUATION WILL BE CONFUSED.
| Should the decision be against this power
to contract. the electric light situation will
| be confused. IL the city may contract for
no longer period than year. then the
board will doubtless find few bidders pre-
! pared to build and equip new plant capa-
BILE of serving the city for such short
period The board intends 10 advertise
soon for bids. bu: nothing will be done
/ doubtless until after the city attorney
answers the mayor.
| 1t is also suggested that in case the city
attorney holds against the power TO con-
| tract for long period. the bidding be post
poned and the Legislature be asked to
| amend the charter so that ten-year con-
| tracts may be made. This would bring the
city within three months of the termina-
ton Of the present contract without a new
one being made. In that case. il is asserted,
| the policy would be to give the successful
bidder a sufficient extension of time to
| erect a plant.
| Others interested think they see the basis
| of litigation over this contract appearing.
Last year when the Taggart administration
| tried to receive bids it was enjoined by the
! Indianapolis Light and Power Company,
| Judge Carter holding that a contract made
| so far ahead of the expiration of the exist
| ing one was against public policy. 1t is
/ now limited that retaliatory litigation. upon
/ the ground set out before may result.
| The question has been before the city
| affairs committee of the Commercial Club.
| and will come before that committee again
/ at its meeting to-day. Former Mayor
! Denny, eX-Judge T. Z. Gavin and Mayor
! Bookwalter are members of this commit
tee. II is understood that Mr.. Denny and
Mr.. Gavin are each looking into the Ques-
| ton.
ASPHALT SPECIFICATIONS.