Valdez daily prospector., 1915-12-06
a case relied upon by plaintiff, it is

those that are granted. No pow
 CTS can be implied except such as
 are essential to the objects and
 purposes of the corporation as ere
 ated and established. I Dill. Nun
 Cor. (3d Ed) Sec. 89, and cases there cited. To the extent of their
 authority they cansbind the people
 and the property subject to their regulation and governmental con- trol by what; they do, but beyond their corporate powers their acts
 are of no effect t | No matter
 how much authority there may be I in the legislature to grant a partic-
 ular power, if the grant has not
 been made the city cannot act un. der it. Bennett V. Denison, 145 U
 s. 135, 12 Sup. Ct. 819, 36 l.. Ed J 652; Hill vs. Memphis, 134 U. S.
 19S, 10 Sup. Ct. 562, 33 L. Ed
 S87." ..
 See also McQuillan Municipal Cor porations, Sec. 353,. where it is said :
 Any ambiguity or doubt arising
 out of the terms employed in the
 grant of power must be resolved
 against the corporation and in fav-
 or of the public"
 The only powers conferred upon municipalities in Alaska referring to the subject in controversy are found in Section 627, Compiled Laws of Alaska, which provides: That the said Common Council shall have and exercise the following powers: '"Fourth-To provide for the To-
 location, construction and main | tainance of the necessary streets,
 alleys, crossings, sidewalks, sewers | and wharves. + **
 Sixth. To provide for fire pro- lection, water supply, lights, wharf,
 age, public health, and police pro- lection. '"
 Upon the construction generally given such powers, it is at least a matter of grave doubt whether a town council in Alaska has any ex- |tra-territorial authority, and my at tention has not been called to a case in point on this question, nor as to the right to establish harbor limits, outside the territorial limits, except where that power is expressly confer red by legislative enactment.
 But upon the merits of the case, what is the situation? rhe plaintiff makes no conceaiment of the purpose 1t has, viz: that of obtaining revenue for the town from wharfage receipts; at least this is the reasons given by several of the councilmen who passed this ordinance.
 In 1902, when defendants wharf and dock were constructed, the fol- lowing section designates the powers in relation to the subject, to-wlt: section POI of the Civil Code of Alas ka (Carter's Code, p. 394)-The Council shall have the following pow iers:
 Fourth. By ordinance to pro- vide for necessary street improve ments, fire protection, water sup
 ply, lights, wharfage, sewerage |" While this statute was in effect, Iand early in the year 1902, the wharf of the defendant was constructed to hil a pressing need of the town; it was impossible to build up a town land have to transport freight and passengers over the intervening 150O rect or more of mud flats between deep water and upland. There is no |evldence that the town at this time had funds With which to build . wharf; and such was indeed the case. The very few people comprising the little town or settlement were willing to go to any length in order to se cure a wharf, and 8 public subscrip- tiOn was started, many subscribing who could not and did not pay any, thing, and few hundred dollars was raised to help out the work, which at that time was a very doubtful inc vestment.
 Between the years 1904 and 1910 another dock, at the foot of Keystone Avenue was operated by authority of the Town Council, and competition thereupon ensued. In 1910 the Town Council purchased said Keystone Dock with a view to competing with the dock of defendant company, which may have been a very laudable purpose, and no doubt has resulted in cheapening the price of coal to the consumers; probably more than enough so to pay for the purchase by the Town of said dock. There is no evidence ill this case from which it can be determined why the steamers do not land at the dock owned by the town.
 The very evident purpose of this proceeding and passage or sa1O ordl- nance is, as some of the witnesses have expressed it, ''To put the defen- dant out of business"
 Now the power and authority of any governmental body, whether mu- nicipality, county, state or nation, cannot be so constructed as to enable it to deprive any person of his prop erty, without just compensation.
 Plaintiff contends that the defen- dant has no right whatever, and that the town council has no power to grant franchise to enable any per son or company to construct or main tain a wharf or dock. If this be true, it is probably also true that the de- fendant cannot have any greater rights without any franchise from the Town Council than it would have with one. E.. | Plaintiff relies upon the case of | ICoprodt vo Miller 2 Alaska SuDra.