The Glenwood post., 1911-04-29
JUDGE Lewis SCORES
PEANUT POLITICS
Pays Compliments to Those Who
Would Not Buy But Prefer To
Destroy Property
CONDITIONS HERE |NEXCUSABLE

In the Federal court at Denver,
Judge Robert Z. Lewis presiding, was
this week heard the case wherein the
Glenwood Light and Water company
sought to enjoin the town of Glenwood
Springs from violating its contract
with the company.
1t has been known for some time to
the people of Glenwood Springs that
| the town authorities have been play
ing peanut politics with the people g
| rights and, under the pretense of work.
ing in behalf of and in the interest of
the people, they have been perpetual
ing themselves in petty offices through
degree of prejudice which they
| themselves have created.
If the authorities had been honest
with the people in the contention that
the town should own and operate it's
water system this end could have been
attained long ago since the statutes
provide clearly the way in which such
end should be secured by condemna-
tion. But that would be business and
not politics. That would provide pay
| ment instead of confscation and de
struction and Of course that would not
do. That would not meet the political
needs of the cheap politicians (cheap
as to methods, but not cheap in price,
as the taxpayers are fast finding outl
and so the grand stand play and the
plan of destruction was resorted to and
for several years the taxpayers have
been bilked by this delectable crowd
and the strange thing about it is that
some of them seem to like it.
AS said before. the case came up
for hearing and argument before Judge
Lewis last Tuesday on an agreed state
ment of facts, arrived at some time ago
by the contending attorneys.
Attorney John A. Rush, of Denver,
who has bled the town for a stiff fee
or rather several stiff fees, during the
last few years, represented the town
board and argued for twelve hours
| upon the visciousness and the great siu
of an exclusive contract not an exclu-
sive franchise and cited authorities ga
! lore to prove the viciousness of an excl,l-
sive franchise, but the most of his
citations were farfetched and wide of
the mark. because there is vast diff
ference between a contract and a
franchise The Glenwood Light and
Water company does not contend IN
this litigation for an exclusive fran
| chise, which would mean the right to
do business in Glenwood Springs, in
furnishing the town and its inhabit-
ants with water for domestic purposes,
but it does not contend for the fulfill
| ment of an exclusive contract to fur
nish the town, as such. with water
from all fire plugs. The town, or rath-
er the present town board, seeks to
break this contract.
Who ever heard of contract that
was not exclusive? Can the town
break any of its contracts and contract
over again with someone else2
One of the main cases cited by Rush
was where a city had given an exclu-
| sive contract to water company to
| furnish the city with water exclusively
for period of years from 200 fire
hydrants and the court held in that
case that the contract, with the water
works, could be condemned and in that
way bought by the city, although ex-
elusive, while under the Glenwood com
pany's contract, upon condemning the
water plant it stipulated that nothing
shall be paid for the contract. Judge
Lewis stated that in the matter of a
contract the town was in exactly the
same position as anyone else.
The case was argued by Attorneys
Nye Of Denver and G. W. Darrow Of
Glenwood Springs for the company
and John A. Rush of Denver, repre-
senting the town, or rather represent
ing Mayor Draeh and his town board.
The following il the account Of the