Valdez daily prospector., 1915-12-06
COMPANY PAID
 S400 A YEAR

Y7UU n IlnII (Continued from Page Two.) nance making it penal offise to use the service of such company, and for the company to make any charge for it's service? Would this not be con- fiscation of property without just compensation, and indeed absolute destruction of property in violation of all constitutional principles? In addition to any property rights the defendant has, the situation is shown to be that many valuable inn provements, business houses and oth- CT structures, have been erected ad- jacent to defendants wharf; the town has been built largely with reference to the main artery or thoroughfare established by this public wharf or dock. If this wharf is suddenly closed, all of these other property owners will necessarily be greatly damaged; some of the buildings and improvements will be rendered nearly worthless, if not quite so. Surely a court of Equity would feel compelled to intervene to prevent such an un- reasonable and unconscionable act of destruction.
 The defendant company has no per- petual franchise, it has no franchise at all, but it is in such position as raises an equitable estoppel as against the town authorities to deal such a blow at the very business center of the town as is proposed.
 McQuillan Municipal Corporations, Section 1922, says
 "As against the municipality, an express grant of the right to use the streets is not always necessary. Such a grant may be waived by the municipality or the municipality may be estopped to object to the use of the streets on that ground See also Sec. 1887 McQuillan Nun. Corp. Vol. A."
 In the case of the City Of Branford vs. N. Y. x P. Telephone & Telegraph Company Pennsylvania case report ed in 56 Atlantic Rep. at Page 43, the Court says:
 while the authorities with us
 are not numerous in holding that
 laches may be imputed to the con-
 monwealth and municipalities in
 denying them equitable relief which
 might otherwise be granted, that rule that it can be imputed to the
 public is clearly laid down in sev-
 eral cases 'Laches may be imput-
 ed to the commonwealth as we'll as
 to an individual Commonwealth
 ex rel Attorney General vs. Bala
 & Byrn Mawr Turnpike Go. 153 Pa.
 AZ, 25 Att. 11O5. In Penn. R. R.
 Go. vs. Montgomery Co. Pass. Ky.
 Co.,, 167 Pa. 6231 All. 468, 27 l..
 R. A. 766, 46 Am. St. Rep. 677,
 we said: But we know as a mat
 ter of current history that street
 railways have been projected, and
 actually constructed and are now in operation over country roads
 where no legal consent has been
 obtained, and where no attention
 has been paid to the rights of prop
 erty holders. Such railways cannot
 now be torn up or enjoined along
 their routes. Where such enter
 prises have been allowed to proceed
 and the expenditure of large sums 1 of money has been permitted, it
 would be negotiable to correct at
 this time what was mutual mis-
 take under the influence of which 1 these enterprises have been pushed
 to completion What was said in
 Attorney General vs. Delaware and
 Boundbrook Railroad Co.,, 27 N. J.
 Eq l, in denying an injunction
 asked for by the state, may well be
 regarded as applicable to the facts in the present case: The work
 has been, from it's commencement,
 a matter of public notoriety, and
 yet no action has been taken on the
 part of the state authorities, nor
 even any warning uttered by tbem
 against the work. The defendants
 have been permitted to make their
 immense expenditure upon their
 enterprise, in the confidenc of their
 convictions they possessed all re-
 quisite Legislative authority, with
 out even word of protest or re-
 monstrance. Under such circum-
 stances, equity will refuse it's aid,
 even to the state."
 In the case at bar, the use of the street complained of by the Town of Valdez, by it's authorities, is not a burden, not hindrance or an ob- struction, nor even an unsightly thing, as telephone or telegraph poles may be, but is an important and val uable improvement and betterment of OOU lS6I Ol LuC IOWCA Clu oA IhO otl COC used, and a carrying out of a public street or highway where none before existed, and where, if this ordinance of the town council could be obtain ed, it would simply mean the destruc- tion and abandonment of a very val- uabIe and necessary planked rOad- way to no ones gain, and to the loss, not only to the defendant, but to the City itself, which would have to erect a new structure over exactly the same ground, before such projected street could be of any possible use. Surely the law does not require so senseless and WantOn a destruction.
 II The defendant has no vested right to unrestrained freedom of action and to remain uncontrolled in its charges