The daily sentinel., 1906-12-24
JUDGE STEVENS DECISION
The Written Opinion of Judge Stevens
Setting Forth Why He Refused
To Grant the Injunction
Against the Light
Company.

As the interest in the decision of
Judge Stevens, of the district court,
few weeks ago, in refusing to grant
an injunction restraining the city
council of Grand Junction from grant
ing an extension of franchise to the
Grand junction Electric & Gas Co,
was very marked and as the charge
Is made by some that Judge Stevens
reversed himself in this decision. the
Sentinel has secured the decision in
writing and publishes It in full so
that all may read. 1t clearly proves
that there is no ground for the charge
that the court reversed itself in refus-
ing to grant an injunction last month
after granting one under different
circumstances last May.
After the preliminary opening form
stating that it is the cause of Myrtle
l. Pelton. plaintin VS.. The City of
Grand Junction. ct al, defendants in
the district court, the decision reads:
In this action plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the defendant. The City of
Grand Junction, from passing a GER
tain ordinance extending the fran
chise of The Grand Junction Electric
& Gas company to the use of the
streets and alleys of said city TO trans
nit electrical energy to different
parts of the city to be used for power,
light and other beneficial purposes for
u period of twenty-five years from and
after the passage of said ordinance.
THE grounds upon which said in
junction is prayed will sufficiently APP
pear in this opinion.
The defendants interpose a de-
murrer which challenges the juris-
diction of the court and the sufIicicncy
of the complaint.
AS to whether or not the court
has the jurisdiction to interfere by
injunction. depends upon whether or
not the city council has the power to
legislate upon the particular matters
contained in the audience and lInless
the city council would exceed its
power In granting the franchise and
privileges specified in the ordinance
the court is powerless to interfere
for the reason that one branch of the
government cannot interfere with o.
control the acts of a coordinate
branch acting within the scope of its
authority conferred by law.
THE general assembly has grant.
ed to the municipal authorities ful
and exclusive control of the streets
and alleys of the city. Under Sec
44O3. End Mills, Goth paragraph. tn,
city council had ample power to gran
the rights and privileges to the com
pany of laying conduits and of erect
Ing poles on its streets and of string
ing wires in the conduits and on pole
and to transmit the electrical powel
in such a way that the conduits, pole:
and wires would not materially inter
fcre with the ordinary uses of the
streets, alleys and grounds by tn,
public. subject to the police power o
the city.
pixies Peak Power Co VS.. City o
Colo. Springs 1O5 Fed. Rep. IL
1t is contended that the proposed
ordinance is in violation of the law
of the general assembly of Colorado
Laws of 1898. page 4G5. and the Law
of 1899, page 4l9. which provid,
that no franchise for the erection o
water works or electric light or ga
works shall be authorized without al
affirmative vote of the qualified eleC
tors thereon, The ordinance unde
consideration grants no such pro
hibited franchise. Ii only purport
to grant an extension OF the right
and privileges to the company of th'
use of the streets and alleys of tn,
city for the uses specified therein
The sections referred to do not pro
hibit the extension or renewal of
franchise Wlready granted i----'.7=----.---
1t is contendcd that no legal no
tlce OF the contemplated presentation
of the ordinance for the consideration
of the city council was published u
given.
1T appears from the record that
notice in substantial compliance will