The Glenwood post., 1911-07-01

On June 26, Judge Lewis rendered
his decision in the case of the Glen
wood Light & Water company VS.. the
town of Glenwood Springs, he holding
on all contested points in favor of the
company.
The judge quoted from the recent de
cision of the United States circuit
court of appeals at Minneapolis in the
case of the Denver Union Water com
pany, VS.. the city of Denver, and
among other things shows that that
court believes it to be unconscionable
to permit city to construct com
peting plant which would result in the
destruction of a plant already in ex-
istence, authorized by municipality
to be constructed for municipal pur-
poses within the city limits and from
which its water supply has been fur
nished.
Judge Lewis quotes from that de
cision to the effect that it is no an
swer for city to say that it may
renew contract entailing the annual
payment of a large sum for hydrant
&service and also build system of its
own for all uses and purposes.
These portions of the Minneapolis
decision, Judge Lewis considers to be
applicable to the case before him.
u,L. .a,,r@ loo;la. tho Elapuno1
Light & Water company case that the
town at all times has had an option
to purchase the water plant of the
company at its true and actual value
to be determined either by arbitrators
or that failing by condemnation; and
that when the town by its various res
olutions, appointed arbitrators. it
elected to buy the company's plant and
pay just compensation therefor, and
that now the town being committed to
a purchase, may not repudiate its
agreement to buy without the com
pany's consent and that it is inmate
rial whether the price to be paid there
for be arrived at by way of arbitration
or condemnation.
The Judge quotes the statutes of
1899 under which former town board
granted to the company twenty years
extension of the old franchise or con-
tract made with Isaac Cooper, thus
continuing or extending the Cooper
contract twenty years from Septem
ber 27, 1907, and then comments as
follows:
= "And for that purpose the defendant
sould have that act construed to mean
that franchise for the construction
and operation of a water plant cannot
be extended or renewed without
majority vote of the taxpayers au
thorizing the same.
"The contention cannot be accepted
as sound. 1t does violence to the plain
meaning of the language used in the
act. 1t requires the approving vote
only in cases in which the city erects
its own plant, or in which it authorizes
the erection of plant by others. Ut
would be an unreasonable interpreta-
tion of its phraseology to hold that the
act requires an approving vote of the
electors before an existing franchise
can be extended or renewed.
"The predominant legislative pur-
pose evinced by the act is q grant Of
power to city councils Of cities and
boards of trustees of towns to pur-
chase or condemn water works, or to
erect such works or to authorize 9th
ers to erect such work, or to extend CT
renew franchises for such works. The
only limitation on the power SO granted
to those bodies is that no such works
shall be erected. or erection thereof by
others authorized( until a majority of
the voters of the city or town who are
taxpayers approve the same.
'There is no limitation found in
the act on the power granted to pur-
Achase such works, or to condemn the
same, or to extend or renew . fran.
chise heretofore granted. The limits'
Cons on the power exists only ~ to
citiss OF towns in which there are NO