Evening capital and Maryland gazette. (Annapolis, Md.) 1910-1922, 1913-01-23
AND MARYLAND GAZETTE.
rs, Md, THURSDAY. JANUARY 2a. 1913.

not be objected 90 such a contract
that il is not signed by the party to
be charged. or that the ordinance is
nothing more than a declaration of
intention. 2s Cyc. 672, People vs..
San Francisco, "a Cal. 665."
This opinion was submitted TO
Mayor Strange Tuesday morning, and
was read at the open meeting Of the
Council, and after the question Of
the contract, and also the question as
TO granting franchises to the new
company had been discusst d, the
members Of the City Council voted
without dissent, to adopt the Coun-
selor's opinion on the legal question
involved. They simply acted ir good
faith in abiding by contract they
had already entered into.
The action of the City Council
on this contract for public lighting,
however, does not at all mean that
the citizens are not TO have fer their
own use the advantages of the mod
ern service and facilities of the new
company. On the contrary, the in
dications are that the City Council
are favorably impressed by these
latest proposals for better lighting
service, and will act accordingly.
''lf the new electric lighting company
had come into the field earlier, and
before the city had concluded its con-
tract with the old company, the City
Council would have been in a posi-
ton to choose between two competing
companies for public lighting. But
the question of street and public light
ing, for which the new company made
proposal that was filed after the
other contract had been made, is alto
gether separate and distinct from the
question that is now being carefully
considered by the City Council.
namely, thu question of granting the
new company franchise rights to
come into the city and compete with
the old company in furnishing gas
and electricity for private consul
mers.
There is every Indication that the
members Of the City Council are
the roughly alive to the Importance of
competition, and that after they
have given due consideration to the
proposed franchises that said fran
chises will be granted upon such
reasonable terms and conditions as
the Council may adopt"
The lighting question has been the
subject of discussion by citizens gen
orally today, and various points in
connection with tn, situation are
raised. One discussed By number
of persons is this
Admitting, as the Gas and Electric
Company officials claimed, and az the
Council by its action OF Tuesday
night. ifina'ly ratifying the legal opin-
ion Of che City Counselor holding it
to be binding instrument notwith-
standing the absence of the Mayors
signature then why should the electric
continue t. render bills to
the city at the old rate of 500 per arc
lamp Instead Of the new rate of $50
as stated in the contract.
The question is also frequently
asked that, if the city cansecure what
is proposed as better service at much
cheaper cost from the Utilities Com
pany, is it within proper bounds for
the Council to rescind action by
which the contract was approved, and
thereby reopen the question entirely
for proposals from both companies?
1t is pointed out by some that
this question is a legal one and one
that could only be settled by court.