Los Angeles herald., 1910-06-28
NEW PHONE RATES
OPPOSED IN COURTS
Sunset Co. Seeks to Restrain the
City from Enforcing 0rdi-
nance Affecting Charges
Continued from Page One,

a vote of the people. In the opinion OF
the city attorney, Leslie r. Hewitt,
this move on the corporations part will
have no effect on the election Thurs
day, and the ordinance Will be voted
on the same as If the petition had not
been filed, as it goes upon the ballot on
an earlier referendum petition filed by
the Municipal league
Yesterday was the last day on which
a referendum petition on the lighting
ordinance could be filed. The corpo-
ration took as much time as possible
before letting it be definitely known
what course it intended to pursue. 1t
came as no surprise to the city Off
cials, however, as they have been ex-
pecting such a move for some time.
The petition calls for decision on
exactly the same question as the one
called for by the petition circulated
through the efforts of Mayor Alexan-
der, which will appear on the ballot.
1t is believed that the lighting compa-
nies are making this move to lay
foundation for a lawsuit, which they
probably will file as soon as the result
OF Thursdays election is known.
WILL NOT HALT ELECTION
The lighting corporations have con-
tended since the council placed the
light rate ordinance on the ballot for
.
it there was illegal under the referen-
dunn law in the city charter. Accord
ing to their attorneys, thirty days must
elapse after an ordinance has been
passed and approved by the mayor be-
fore the council can consider referen-
dunn petitions to place that ordinance
before the people for approval. 1t was
in backing up this theory that yester-
days petition was filed, as they SEEM
ingly believe that the voters of Los
Angeles cannot legally pass puon the
lighting ordinance as 1T Will appear on
the ballots Thursday.
When asked about the significance or
the filing of the petition yesterday, City
Attorney Hewitt said:
1.-THE petition will have no effect on
the election Thursday, and the lighting
ordinance will be voted on the same as
if no petition had been filed. l am OF
the opinion that their petition is un-
necessary and was filed simply to cloud
matters as much as possible. The case
in question is entirely covered by the
petition circulated by the mayor, ana
if the corporations really desired to
have the people decide the question
they would not have gone to all the
trouble of circulating petition to
place a matter already on the ballot on
there again.
LEGAL STATUS OF MATTER
"The corporations contend that the
council has no right to place an ordl-
nance on the ballot until thirty days
have elapsed after it's approval. Ac-
cording to my understanding of the
law, the council can place an ordinance
on ballot at any time after petltlon
requesting it to do so is filed, even il
it is only two or three days after it has
been approved.
"The law does not countenance or
provide for the filing of two or three
referendum petitions covering the same
thing. 1t clearly states that the coun-
Gil may call special election or submit
the matter to the people at a general
election, on the filing of referendum
petition within thirty days after it has