Omaha daily bee., 1914-05-16
TO SUBMIT PRINTED BRIEFS
Oral Arguments in the Dollar Gas
Case Are Finished.
MHUeH SAYS DEAL PUBLIC
Baker Argues that Contract Cannot
ne Construed 20 Take Away
from the People the Right
90 Fix the Rate.


one chapter in the fight OF the Gas
company against the dollar gas ordi-
nance will be closed early In June, with
the submission OF the printed briefs and
testimony in the case, before Judge
Thomas c. Munger Of the United States
District court The oral arguments
have been concluded. w. u. McMugh
speaking last in behalf OF the gas COM
pany.
In his morning argument. Mr.. McHugh
discussed the conferences between the
real estate exchange, the city council.
and the officers Of the gas company
with reference to the granting OF the
franchise now in force. Judge McHugh
sought to show that there was the great
est possible publicity attending the pas
sage OF the franchise ordinance Coun-
sci for the gas company by numerous
citations, exploited their argument that
the Nebraska statutes were constitu-
tlonal, while the attorneys for the city
OF omaha, w. c. Lambert and Ben
Baker. argued the technical unconsti-
tutionality OF the act which gave the
council authority TO grant the franchise
and fix the rates at which gas should
be sold consumers. under that contract.
II presume that this case will be car
ried to the higher courts?' asked Judge
Munger OF the attorneys.
II don't know whether the city will
take II to the supreme court. or not"
replied W. d. McHugh before counsel
for the city could reply. The crowd in
the court room laughed.
Attacks COnstitutionaIity.
Attacking the constitutionality OF the
amendment of 1898, w. c. Lambert laid
particular emphasis on the fact that the
amendment referred to a section OF the
statute, which provided for the construc.
ton OF water works plants, instead OF
gas manufacturing and distributing com.
panies The amendment was to section
81 OF the general statutes, while the
other provisions for the regulation OF gas
companies and other public service cor
porations, we're found in section 50. The
counsel for the city referred to the pass
age of this amendment as bit Of
"stealthy legislation" and intimated that
it was made TO apply to the wrong Sec
tion Of the statute for the purpose OF
deceiving the people.
Ben Baker, followed Mr.. Lambert. in
sisted that even II the amendment In
question were valid, the wording of the
amendment was go ambiguous that It in
itself was unconstitutional In It's applica-
ton He contended that the phrase of
the empowering act. fix rates during the
period named In the ordinance or con-
tract" meant during the existence Of
the council, and not forever, as had been
suggested. He further declared that II
their construction of this phrase were
accepted, the rates fixed in the electric
light ordinance might hold forever since
their franchise had been held as a per-
petual one.
No Negative Ratification.
"You cannot construe this franchise to
mean that the people shall not have the
right TO Fix, rates, declared he. The
council cannot by it's inactivity ratify
franchise, which IL It were submitted
TO the voters today, would require the
positive action Of all the voters. The
city and the people are not seeking to
destroy the franchise nor tear down the
property Of the gas company. We are
merely contepding the right to fix the
rates. The laws protect the gas com.
pany from any confiscatory rates
Therefore they are now merely contend
ling for an amount in excess OF the fail
charges, which they should receive. and
trying to hide behind an unconstitutiona
law, which put in force a franchise
which in the matter of rates. is no
valid