The daily sentinel., 1906-12-24

Sec. OF an act entitled Ordinances"
of the laws of the general assembly,
approved April 6, 1905, page 293
Sess. l.. 1905. was published. spec
flying the regular meeting of the city
council at which The Grand Junction
Electric & Gas company would apply
for the renewal and extension of its
franchise. at the same time publish
ing the ordinance that il desired to
have passed.
In my judgment the notice thus
given was ample to give notice of the
intention of the company to every
body who had any interest in the mat
ter. The fact that such notice was
not signed is such an commission as,
in my judgment, the city council
might waive. The statute does not
specifically require such notice to be
signed and the public could not be
misled nor injured by such omission.
Counsel for plaintiff contends that
Sec. of the proposed ordinance is
void for the reason that 1t binds the
city not to become interested in any
other electric light and gas company
| that would compete with The Grand
/ Junction Electric 4 Gas company,
and that monopoly is created in
favor of said company. / do not
| llluh ludl ltlt httllOD ItltlItu 10 Will
bear any such construction. The
ordinance contains no covenant that
the grant made shall be exclusive. II
does not create monopoly nor pre-
vent the granting of a similar fran
chise to another company. The cove
nant not to erect electric or gas works
of its own nor become interested in
the erection of such works by others.
was in effect an agreement that the
city would in good faith carry out the
spirit of its contract. and if it wanted
to run its own electric light works 1t
would condemn and pay for the
works of the company as it may do
under the ordinance.
| city of Walla Walla. vs.. tn"
Walla Walla Water company 10 Sup.
Ct. Rep. n
1t is contended that the city coun-
ell has no power to grant renewal
or an extension of the franchise four
years before tn expiration of the pres
ent franchise. but / know of no rule
of law. and plaintin cites no author
tiles, which sustain such contention
The city council has the power to
| grant a franchise for 25 years, and
the proposed ordinance does not pur-
port to grant a franchise for greater
length OF time than . years from and
after its passage.
"Plaintin further contends that
the city council cannot grant a fran
Chisc which will extend beyond the
charter life OF the company, but the
power to grant a franchise for %
years is given by statute, and ! know
of no rule of law that will restrict the
lefty council TO shorter period. This
franchise is assignable under the or
ldinance and the present company may
lrcncw its charter or il may assign the
franchise to some other company
The city has a right to grant fran
chise for 25 years and the corpora
tion has the right to receive such
grant. which constitutes property
interest which is not limited by the
/ expiration of its charter.
, Detroit Citizens St Ry. Go. vs..
II City of Detroit. Ga Fed Rep. G2g'
State vs.. Laclede Gas Co %
Am. ST. Rep. 7S9'
The contention of plaintff that in
another action the judge OF this court
enjoined the passage of q similar
ordinance and that such injunction is
5 still in force, cannot be considered as
, a precedent in this case. for two con
trolling reasons: First. the ordin-
; ance referred to granted a franchise
J for the construction of an electric
light and gas plant which held
r could not be done without vote of
the qualified electors of the city;
5 second. the city council exceeded its
) powers by attempting to pass an or
= dinance which was not published in
? full and which for some of the most
important terms of the grant relied
upon reference to another ordinance
/ which had been passed many years
before. This attempt on the par. of
the city council was in direct viola
tion OF the statute granting the city
ell powers to pass ordinances.
= Again, il is alleged that when the
ordinance now proposed d is adopted it
is the intention of the city council to
/ enter into longtime contract with