Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-06-16
WATER COMPANY WINS SUIT
circuit Court Of Appeals RevsrSsa and
Remands Meter Rate Case,
FRANCHISE is DECLARED A CONTRACT
Opinion written by Judge sanbOrn
UphOIds Contention thnt IL
Cannot BE Impaired by
LeEisIation.

ST. PAUL. June 15.-The United States
circuit court of appeals flied decisions In
two cases today. those of Edmund M. Fair
field and Stockton Heth versus the United
States of America and the Omaha Water
Company versus the City of Omaha, ct al,
the first being case Of contempt OF
court, arising from the second. Both come
from the Nebraska district
In the spring of 1906 the city OF Omaha
through its water board attempted to re-
duce the meter rates for water in that
city, the Omaha Water company being the
| company affected by the proposed change.
IT applied for injunction against the city
preventing it from putting the rates into
effect but the application was denied,
wbereupon suit was brought on the ground
that their franchise was contract and
according to federal law could not be inn
paired by Legislation.
The court held that the clause In the
constitution of Nebraska, prohibiting the
state Legislature from making any irrevoc-
able grant applied in this and decided in
favor of the city. The company then ap-
pealed to the circuit court of appeals on
writ of error
! The appellate court, in the opinion filed
today and written by Judge Walter II.
/ Sanborn, upheld the claim of the company,
]
and remanded the cast to the lower court
for further proceedings not inconsistent
with the opinion.
| The other case arose when h. NJ. Fair
! field and Stockton Heth, employees of the
water company, were ordered by the clerk
of the court to produce the books of the
company.
They did not produce the records and
were fined $50 each and costs. This was
upheld by Judge Sanborn.
When the Water board some months ago
arbitrarily reduced the meter rates from
S5 to IS cents per 1000 gallons the water
company brought suit in the federal court
here to prevent the operation of the rates.
Judge Munger denied the application for
such an injunction and the rates went into
effect. The water company continued to
| make out it's bills at the old rates and
accepted payment at the new rates under
protest holding that II the higher courts
overruled Judge Munger the bills would be
subject to collection at the old rates and
this would be effected through court litiga-
tion. The water company at once appealed
from the decision of Judge Munger to the
circuit court Of appeals and the case went
to Judge Sanborn. After the first reduc
ton the Water board made a reduction
of the fiat rate, which went into effec'
January, 1906
Carl c. Wright, one of the attorneys fol
the Water board ventures the opinion
without seeing the text OF the SanborI
decision. thai the Water hoard will carr.
the case to the United States supreme cour
and that pending action by the highes
tribunal at Washington it is probable HI
lpeople will have TO pay the old rate, bu
that it is question whether. IL the com
psny finally wins the people will have t,
pay the difference between the two rate
for the period elapsed between the Munge
and Sanborn decisions.
r. S. Hall, attorney for the water com
pany, takes the position that the consumer
, will have to pay the company the differenc
between the old and new rates for tn
time the latter has been in effect Whethe
the Water board appeals to the suprem
v court or not, he says, the people will hav
: to pay the old rate now or have their waite
. shut OF.