The Colfax gazette. [volume] (Colfax, Wash.) 1893-1932, 1906-05-25
HOLD THE FRANCHISE
City Council Recinds ReVOking
Resolution.
The Whitman Electric Railway and
Power Company will Have
Hearing July =

Moved, that this council reCind the
resolution passed May 7, 1906. decar.
ing vacated the franchise granted to |.
i. Harris, John Hart, II. ii. Newton,
their successors ana assigns and that Oh
July ,, 1906, the parties herein referred
TO appear before this council and show
cause Why che franchise granted in Ordi
nance NO. 2S3 should not bp declared
vacated and forfeited
Aye-COdd, Dreiius, Larue Mastin.
NO-Perrine.
Not vOting-Abrams
Above is the net result of about six
hours deliberation of the city council,
commencing at the regular meeting Mon
day night and ending near midnight on
Tuesday, when the recess meeting ad-
lourned. Ia it the Whitman Electric
Railway and Power Co does not secure
just what it desired or asked for. its re-
quest being simply that the action oi
the council forfeiting the franchise be
rrcinded, while as the matter now stands
the company IL required ID produce evi.
dence ana show cause on July WHY the
rights granted should not be finally and
absolutely annulled and abrOgated.
For the Company.
The matter was taken up at the Mon
day night session after the regular and
routine business had been disposed Of.
Attorney Pickrell, representing the com
pany, addressed the council, beginning
with the statement that the council had
exceeded its power in declaring the fran
chlse forfeited, as the power to forfeit
had not been delegated to the city by the
legislature, hence the action was
nullity
Rytf IL a
franchise depended upon the fulfiIment
Of certain conditions, one being the
building, al any point Of the line within
the county, OF one mile of road wear.
Instead of the word grade" as used in
the county franchise, the word road
had been employed in the city grant,
hence IL was a question of construction
the intent OF the council granting the
franchise, and the cOmpany's contention
was that the intent and understanding
among the councimen was that the city
franchise should correspond with that
Of the county.
kilograms and letters were introduced
to SHOW that negotiations were under
way for financing the project. which
would be upset II intending investors
were confronted with the condition that
the franchise had been declared forfeited,
legally or otherwise. Therefore, having
in fact complied with the provisions Of
the franchise, the council was asked to
revoke its former action and reinstate
the franchise.
Officers Explain.
Chas. F. Stuart, secretary OF the com
pany, told that the company was about
two years old and had built mile OF
grade each year. He detailed the efforts
made to finance the proposition, explain
ing that the trust company with which
they first negotiated had failed, The
second and present effort was with
another San Francisco firm, which had
been supplied with maps, prOfiles and
other data, all of which were DESTROYED
in the recent fire, thereby delaying mat
ters, but they had since received letters
and tele2rams announcing that a repre-
sentative would be on the ground to
investigate and he was expected daily.
The action OF the council was without
warning to the company, which had no
opportunity to offer anything in defense.
;, ID. LOmmassOn, president Of the
company, explained that he was mem
ber OF the council that granted the fran
chise and that all understood that the
requirement was the building Of mile Of
grade each year-nOt Il mile OF road
completed and running. He appealed
for the protection of investors ana con
sderatiOn Of every mans rights.
A general discussion OF the subjec by
the cOuncilmen present ensued, but ns
there were two abaentees, Codd and
Dreifus, and it was desired to have a full
vote in dispOsing of the matter, a motion
to take recess until o'clock Tuesday
evening prevailed.
After Recess.
At the appointed hour the council
recOnvened, all present except Easum.
In the absence Of Mayor Davenport,
Councilman Codd was called to the chair.
For the information OF the conncilmen
not present Monday night, the matter
was again presented by Attorney Pick
rell The discussion which followed,
somewhat wider in range aud more ami
mated than on the previous evening,
continued until nearly midnight All Of
the councilmen expressed a desire TO do
what was right and deal fairly with the
company, but the opposition to the
proposal to recind the former action was
well defined. Things came to a focus
when the following motion was voted
down:
Moved, that the consideration of this
matter be laid over for thirty days, 10
give the promoters of the railroad an
opportunity to present their side of the
case and show evidence that the road
will be built.
Aye-Abrams. Perrine.
No--Codd, Dreifus, Larue, Mastin.
The motion lecinding and appointing
a date for the company to appear, show
cause, printed in full at the head OF this
article, was then passed.
And the council adjourned.
Have you pains in the back, infam-
nation OF any kind, rheumatism, faint
ing spells, indigestion or constipation?