Los Angeles herald., 1909-01-24

Los Angeles than has any other. At
tached to the petition for the franchise
was the ordinance granting the fran
chtSe itself. This ordinance had been
prepared by Mr.. Gilmore's personal at
torney.
BY invariable usage when franchises
were granted the petition was first
passed on by the council, the city at
torney was ordered to draw an ordin-
ance advertising the franchise for sale,
a date was fixed for receiving bids and,
in fact, several weeks were consumed
between the petition for the franchise
and the final grant.
A few minutes after 4 o'clock Minute
Clerk Wilde read the petition for the
franchise. Councilman Ford imme-
diately moved that it be granted, and
this was promptly seconded. 1t was
evident the council knew what was
coming, if the public had been kept
in the dark. The case was such a
fragrant violation of council rules and
the action so hasty that G. D. Willard,
secretary of the Municipal league, who
was attending the meeting, involun-
tarily jumped to his feet with the
remark:
"Whew! I guess a melon has been
cut around here, somewhere"
Councilman Blanchard, who was the
president pro tenn, ordered roll call on
Ford's motion.
Before this could be done Houghton,
who had been elected on a municipal
ownership ticket and who always op-
posed the granting of any franchise
whatever, jumped to his feet. He op-
posed this franchise on the same gen.
eral grounds on which he opposed all
franchises, saying that they belonged
to the people and should not be granted
tn ToT-iyy re-
in Spite of Counsel
He finally called on Herbert J.
Goudge, who was then assistant city
attorney, for an opinion on the fran
chise Mr.. Goudge declared that it
would be inaIvisable to pass the ordi-
nance in the form in which it was pre-
sented He said the franchise, as
worded, might interfere with the city's
water rights in the river bed, and that
if any franchise could be granted in
the river bed it would have to be done
by the water board. The conclusion of
his analysis was that the council had
no legal authority to grant the fran
chise, and that even if it had, it should
not do so.
After this strong protest from At
torney Goudge the council showed some
hesitancy in acting, but only for a
minute. On q weak call 1OE the QuSS-
ton Councilman Blanchard, president
pro tenn, ordered the roll call. Blanch-
ard, Ford, Hitler, Healy and Kern
voted for the franchise. Harmon and
Houghton voted against it. AS it bore
the emergency clause it required six
votes to carry it. Blanchard declared
it lost. Then Houghton asked that it
be referred to the city attorney Blan-
chard declared this could not be done,
as it had been disposed of by the vote.
Then" said Houghton, II wish to
change my vote to aye"
With this change of vote Blanchard
declared the franchise passed. The
council then adjourned under the i'm
preston it had granted the franchise
to Mr. Gilmore, but Attorney Goudge
was very positive in his statement that
the motion had been lost. He showed
that, as the motion had been declared
lost by President Blanchard, no change
Of vote made after this declaration
could affect the result.
After the council adjourned Gilmore
threw out yelled hints that the fran
chise was for the use of the Western
Pacific, which was then completing its
line to San Francisco and was ex-
pected to ask for a franchise into Los
Angeles.
When it became Datent to tho council