Arizona republican., 1918-08-06
SAYS THAT SPECIAL
 PRIVILEGE GIVEN IN
 GARBAGE ORDINANCE

The city garbage ordinance, or the interpretation which the city puts on It, was attacked in superior court yes- terday by Captain George D. Christy, counsel for John Georgouses, defend ant in an action in which he is charged with violating the ordinance which forbids the transportation by unauthorized persons of garbage over the streets and alleys of the city. .
 Complaint was made against the de- fendant last October by Harry Hurley. the garbage contractor and he was found guilty in the city court. An ap- peal was taken to the superior court, and the case came before Judge Stan ford yesterday. Assistant City Attor- ney J. E. Nelson appeared in support of the ordinance, and Attorney R. W. Kramer appeared in the interest of the complaining witness.
 About a year ago Mir Hurley was awarded a five-year contract for dis posing of the garbage at s7,500 a year. The defendant is the owner of three restaurants in the city. The refuse from these restaurants was collected by the defendant and moved to a ranch where he was feeding some hogs and chickens.
 The numerous citations to which the attorneys for both tides referred the court shows that the garbage question has enlisted the attention of courts of all the states and of the supreme court of the United States. so that the case of the City vs. Georgouses introduces no new problem.
 It was the theory of Captain Christy that the ordinance as it has been con- ct Tn1 Iy- o.t, of the state constitution which pro- vides that no law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citi- zens or corporation. other than munic- ipal, privileges and immunities which, upon the same terms, shah not equally belong to all citizens or corporations 2 It was contended by Captain Christy that the city has attempted to create such a privilege. The garbage, he said, was the property of the defendant and was of certain value to him, of which he could not be disrossessed without due process.
 MT. Nelson said that the city had no interest in the welfare of either Mir. Hurley or the defendant. It was con- cerned only in the sanitative and eco- homie legislation.
 | In enacting the ordinance and awarding the contract under it to MT l Hurley, who was the lowest and best bidder, the city had saved more than s3,000 in the disposition of the gar bage and had provided that the dispo- sition should be accomplished in a san itary manner. The year previous it had cost the city more than s11 900 to handle the garbage. The legislation and the proceeding under it had been for the health, comfort and good order of the city.
 Mir. Kramer contended that the city as a measure of public policy had 8 right to enact the ordinance; it was within it's police powers, and he read from many decisions on the same sub- ject. The new ordinance, he said, diff fered from the previous one only ir that it withheld the power of the city manager to grant to other persons other than the contractor permits tC remove garbage. Such permits would seriously interfere with the contractor in view of the fact that the contractor had offered bid in the expectation o being able to dispose of the garbage at profit. That could not be done il the garbage should be taken by othei persons. leaving to the contractor only Class B garbage consisting of refuse paper. old bottles and tin cans.
 The matter was taken under advise. ment by Judge Stanford.