Valdez daily prospector., 1915-12-06

CT is complaining, but on the con- trary every owner of land abutting defendants dock approach testifies that instead of it's being an obstruc- tion it is a great benefit. The Court says, at the bottom of page 438 (aft- CT citing the statute, standardization 6 of Section 627, Comp. Laws of Alaska, supra)-
 Power to provide for the loca-
 tion construction, and maintenance
 of the necessary wharves imposes
 upon the council public duty as
 we'll as a power to perform it.
 When it shall appear necessary to
 the council to provide these useful
 aids to commerce, 1t becomes their
 official duty to locate and deter
 mine where the wharf shall be
 built, to construct or build it, and thereafter to maintain it and keep it in repair"
 Council for plaintiff argues that the Town Council must exercise these powers; but let us see. How many towns in Alaska have constructed or own their own water system. or light ing system, or sewerage system? It would no doubt be a most excellent thing if they did; no one can deny that. In this day and age any one who does not favor public ownership of public utilities, is sadly behind the spirit of the times. But this is no reason for taking ones property away from him without compensa- tion. What reason is there for say ing that a town in Alaska cannot grant franchise or license. as it may be called, reasonable in it's terms not exclusive in it's character. and for reasonable time, with provision for the town acquiring the property ultl- mate1y at a reasonable time. with provisions for the town acquiring the property ultimately at reasonable valuation, for electric lighting, for water system, for sewerage system! And if for these why not for wharf, age? Do the people coming togeth- CT in country of great inconvenience at the best, poor and struggling to huild up a town, where they hope to 1 live in peace, establishing schools and educate their children, have to fore go the modern conveniences of cleo tric lighting, water and sewerage sys- tenn, because the lay says the Council shall provide" these things. and there is absolutely no money with which to provide them? Are the people bound by such construction! Is the law made for the people or are the people made for the law?
 If they can make reasonable and necessary contracts for these things. are they still compelled to wade in mud up to their knees and suffer the expense, difficulty and delay of having their freight hauled through almost impossible mud and water for third of mile, because the town has no funds with which to build wharf?
 It is not g question of perpetual and exclusive franchise; of course the defendant has no such thing, and would be the last one who would wish to see such a privilege given away If 1t were possible to do so. It would be a great calamity if the defendant or any one else could acquire the right to have such a perpetual or ex- elusive franchise and without any power of control or regulation as to rates. s.. ..-
 1 Suppose, however, that in the first days of an Alaskan town, some one had put in an electric light system Tor water system, or sewerage system, with or without the sanction of the town council; suppose such system had been used by every one, includ- ing the town itself as an entity. for over thirteen years, had paid taxes and increased its service SO that Il had a property worth forty or fifty thousand dollars. Would 1t be fair or equitable for the town to then construct or acquire by purchase an. other such system and pass an ordi- ! 1roptinned, on Page Three.)