The daily sentinel., 1906-05-16

An attempt Is being made by the
other paper to leave the impression
with the people that the fact that the
proposed ordinance concerning the
extension of the franchise TO the light
company, was published in the Daily
Sentinel had much to do with the ac-
tion of Judge Stevens in granting the
temporary Injunction. This is abso-
ntely without foundation this mat
ter that the other paper has made
such hurrah about and is endeavor-
ing to lead the people to believe was
wholly Illegal was not mentioned
once by the attorneys on either side
in the arguments before Judge Stev-
ems
Attorney Sternberg. for the light
company and City Attorney Coles,
moved that that section of the com
plant for injunction setting forth
that because of the fact that the
proposed ordinance was published in
the Daily Sentinel the matter was
wholly Illegal and in direct violation
of the laws Of Colorado. along with
numerous other sections. the
attorneys for the defendant asked
to be stricken out on the grounds that
IL was immaterial, prevalent and on
tircly without connection with the
matter In charge.
The attorneys for Slocomb confess
sed and admitted that these sections
were prevalent and immaterial with
the exception of the section which re-
ferred to the city entering into a con-
tract with the light company. and
stated that they would not resist the
motion to strike out these sections
with the exception named above.
Judge Stevens stated that there
aaH. Oh,
plication that were entirely immater-
ial and had nothing TO do with the
case The attorneys for the plaintiff
only resisted the striking out of the
one section relating to the city en-
terins into q contract with the light
company.
This admission on the part of the
attorneys for the plaintim shows how
little Importance was attached to this
charge. The law of 1905 plainly
states that the proposed ordinance
must be published in /. daily paper
and the city council not the mayor or
not with the mayor voting. lets the
contract FOR the printing of the pro-
posed ordinance.
The legality of the action in pub
lishlng the ordinance in the Daily
sentinel was not questioned once.
The attorneys for the defense cit
ed n case to the court given in the
le5th Federal Reporter, which was
the decision of the United Stares
circuit court of appeals. Eighth cir
cult. entitled Pixies Peak Power Co.
vs.. City of Colorado Springs in
which II was held that thes tatute
under which this application was
made providing hat the matter OF en-
tering into contracts with corpora
lions for a certain length of time
must be submitted to vote of the
people. only applied when the city
government proposed to build a mum
icipal plant or proposed to enter in
to contract for the construction of
the same by another party for the
city, but that granting of franchises
as in this case did not come under the
statute. This ruling is very pointed
and firm in its statements.
Judge Stevens stated to tho attor-
neNs after the session in chambers
was over that his faith in his ruling
In the Gunngson case had been con-
siderably shaken by the authorities
presented by the attorneys for the de
fendants and the light company. He
stated that no authorities had been
cited when he made his ruling at
Gnnnison.