The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-03-12
rate ORDINANCE.
DISCUSSED BY
ATTY BANGS
He Replies to Insinuations Of
Mayor Duis as to His Be-
ing Influenced.

over an ordnance attempting 10 reg
ulate the price of gas and among other
things stated its belief that there was
an organized opposition to the policy
OF Mr.. Duis in gas matters; about the
same time there was distributed a let
ter signed by Mr.. Duis, in which he,
In substance, charges corruption on
the part OF those whose Judgment does
not coincide with his and who oppose
him in his efforts for reelection.
A decent regard for my own stand
Ing impells me to furnish statement
concerning the so-called rate ordi-
nance"
Combination and Corruption.
In so far as Mr.. Duis insinuates or
implies that money influenced my
opinion or any action taken by me in
the gas matter, or relative to his re-
election, say that such statements
are false and his only purpose in so
maxim gthem was to mislead and at
tempt to create public sentiment in
his behalf as we'll as to interject poll
teal feelings and prejudices into a
business matter of the utmost import
ance to the city.
AS to the Herald combination, I say
that If the concurrence OF sane, sober
judgments be such, then combination
exists, otherwise not.
The Gas company exercises rights
under franchise claimed to be per-
petual, without any compensation to
the city and without control by the
city over quality or" rates.
1, as the city attorney, have ad-
yised Mr.. Duis the city could go to the
root of the matter, cancel the fran
chise, being an action to GUST the COM
pany from the streets or of quo war
ranto to test the validity of the fran
chise, which l have advised the coun-
Gil was invalid and void by reason of
lack of power to grant the same.
submit to sober judgments. which
is correct?
Mr.. Duis says litigate one small por-
ton of the controversy between the
city and the Gas company, /. e., the
question of rates.
say, litigate the validity of the
franchise which deem invalid; If sue
cessful. the city can grant new fran
chise limited in duration, providing
for compensation for the use of the
streets and reserving control over
quality and price of the gas furnished.
Why has it not been done?
have offered to go into the subject
as exhaustively as went into the
validity of the franchise and the ques-
ton of the power of the council to
regulate rates.
The council is without power to reg
ulate rates because such power is a
governmental function and the state
has never delegated such power to the
council; inevitable defeat faces us at
the end of the litigation proposed by
Mr.. Duis; see favorable outlook
for the litigation L propose, which will
include all that Mr.. Duis suggests.
Chicago Litigation.
The Herald editorial refers to one
Granville w. Browning and litigation
conducted by him for the city of Chi
cago.
The Peoples Gas Light G Coke Co.
is corporation into which has been
merged various subsidiary corpora
tons each of which has franchises
granted from the city of Chicago; the
rights of these subsidiary corporations
vary according to the franchise; the
city of Chicago enacted a rs cent rate
ordinance for gas and the Peoples G.
L. & G. Co. began an action to enjoin
Its enforcement on behalf and in the
right of the Subsidiary corporations
claiming the. franchises thereof to be
contracts; some of such franchises
We're not contracts; Mr.. Browning
was attorney for the city of Chicago
and the case went to the Supreme
Court of the United States and is there
reported as the Peoples G.. L. & C.
Co., vs.. Chicago, 1874 U. S.>I.; the sole
question determined was that the ac-
ton was not divisible; the plaintiff
could not enforce rights that were
greater than the least of the subsid-
larry corporations; stated in other
words. the plaintiff could not transfer
the greater rights of one subsidiary
corporation to the subsidiary corpora
ton having lesser rights and for this
reason the bill was dismissed.
Subsequently Mr.. Mills stock
holder of the plaintiff in the preceding
case began an action in the United
States court asking for the same relief
prayed for by the Peoples G. L. & G.
Co.; Mr.. Browning was again the at
torney for the city. The opinion is
by Grosscup, j.. and reported at 127
Fed. page 731. II.
The question was then fairly be-
fore the court as to whether or not
Chicago had the power to enact an
ordinance similar to our proposed
rate ordinance: need only quote the
syllabus and it will be seen that Mr..
Browning and the city were effectually
defeated.
The. syllabus.
1.-THE regulation Of the prices to be
charged the consumers by gas COM
panies is not one Of the powers essen
tial to municipal government, and is
not included In the general yowers
conferred .on cities; and such power
cannot be exercised by the city unless
1t has been delegated by the state in
express words or by fair Implication
from a power expressly granted"
a. In the opinion Is this language:
@Until there is legislation. more un-
mistakable, than the language used, i
shall not hold that such was the leg
islatiye intent" u. e.to regulate
rates)3