Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-04-03
WATER ORDINANCE IN coU.
COURT
Stakeholder seeks 10 EnjOin Enforce
ment Of NenN Rnie.

Stakeholder seeks 10 EnjOin Enforce
ment of New Rate.
On the petition of George N. Smalley,
resident of the state of Massachusetts who
states that he owns s2S,OOO of the stock of
the Council Bluffs City Water Works COM
pany, Judge Smith Mcpherson of the
United States court yesterday issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining the
mayor and members of the city council
from putting into force the ordinance
passed February % and which provided for
reduced schedule of water rates.
AS will be seen by the courts order
which follows, the hearing on the applica-
ton for an injunction is set for April "a
at Davenport:
George N. Smalley, complainant. against
the City of Council Bluffs and other de-
PENDANTS. Order.
The bill of complaint verified having been
presented 1t is ordered:
That a restraining order issue against
each and all of the defendants and their
all of the defendants to not authorize the
recording, engrossment or enrolling OF a
certain ordinance OF said city passed Feb
ruary %, 1906, upon the subject of water
rates And the said defendants and all of
them are prohibited from enforcing or at
tempting to enforce said ordinance or any
part thereof.
This order shall be and remain in force
until April o. 1906 unless sooner modified
on motion of defendants on notice to COM
plainant or his cousel said date being fixed
two days later than the hearing Tor tenn
And this case is set down for hearing at
Davenport, Ia. on the first day of the court
there to convene April "a, 1906 at 10 O'Clock
a. m. of said day.
SMITH MCPHERSON. Judge.
This appeal to the federal court on the
part of the stockholders of the wSter works
company was not unexpected, as it was
known for some time here that such step
/ was contemplated
/ While only the members of the old city
council are named as defendants in the pc
tition the restraining order enjoins the new
council as we'll,
| The water works company is made party
defendant to the suit and the petition re-
cites that the suit is not collusive one tc
confer on a court of the United States jur-
| isdiction of case of which 1t would not
otherwise have cognizance.
! Although the recently passed ordinance
reducing the water rates is attacked the
contention is made that the franchise OF
| the company does not expire until Deem
| Der 10 of this year, and possibly not unit
January "a, 1908. In support of the conten
ton that the franchise does not expire unit
December 10 of this year II is asserted tina
the charter, which was granted on January
"a, 1881, was suspended until December 10
1881. owing to litigation begun by n. p
Dodge and others of this city, and there
fore the franchise dated from the latte
date. Later the council extended the tint
for completing the water works to Januar!
"a. 1888 and that this extension operated
to extend the franchise twenty-five year
from that date.
Regarding the ordinance reducing tn
| afaQ [ Il Oh hot he
forcement of the ordinance would decreas
the company's income 20 such point tina
It could not meet its obligations and oper
ating expenses
In conclusion the court Is asked to Sc
aside and declare az null and void the or
dinance passed February p last and q
make the injunction perpetual