The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1918-04-30
CITY COMMISSION
VOTES AGAINST
MOTION TO ASK
FOR GROSS TAX.
Three to Two Ballot On
Union Power Company
Issue This Morning

The Fargo city commission this
morning voted down Commissioners
Blakemore's resolution calling on the
city attorney to begin suit against
the Union. Light, Heat. a Power
company TO enforce the collection of
two per cent tax upon power fur
nished by the company to the Fargo
~ Moorhead street railway.
commissioners Blakenore and Jor-
dan voted for the resolution, while
commissioners Stern, Strate and
Mills opposed il.
The commission, by this vote, takes
the position that the city OF Fargo
made a settlement Of its claim
against the company by agreeing to
accept the company's contention that
the tax against power delivered to
the street railway system be waived,
the power company agreeing not to
increase the charge for electric cur
rent furnished to the municipality
Tor street lighting purposes.
During the progress of the dis
.cussions which occupied most of the
forenoon, there were some rather in
teresting passages between Com
misstoners Stern and Blakemore.
City Attorney Shure took the po-
sition that II the commission looked
upon its agreement with the company
as a settlement Of its claim, the case
could not be successfully prosecuted
in the courts.
On Sept. /, 1911. the Union Light,
Heat and Power company and city
made q contract for street lighting
and In this contract It was provided
that the company should pay to the
city per cent Of its gross coilec-
ttons from the sale Of electricity, gas
and steam within the limits OF the
city of Fargo, except collections from
street lighting service for the city.
This contract was renewed from
time to time until Sept /, 1915, but
was not renewed since that date.
On Feb. l, 1919, the assets and
property Of the Union Light and
Power company, and OF the Fargo
and Moorhead Street Railway COM
pany were taken over by Northern
States Power company, and there
after they were only departments of
that company, and were part OF one
and the same company, according
to the position taken BY the COM
pany.
After Feb. 1. 1913, no further pay
ments OF 2 per cent upon the cleo
trical energy furnished to the street
railway department because the COM
pany claimed that under its contract
with the city Ii was not required to
pay for electricity used by itself I'm
one Of its departments, but only
upon electricity sold TO others and
FOR which 1t made a collection,
The company claims that, in any
event, 1T could only be called upon
to pay 2 per cent on electricity used
in its street railway department |
from FEB. i, 1913. 10 Sept 10. 1915. |
while its contract with the city was
IN force. The company says this
amounts TO 94es.s0 and that even /
though the per cent tax is figured /
from Feb. /, 1913, to Sept. ]. 1915, |
IL amounts 70 only S99T.6I.
During fall Of 1917 the question /
came Up as TO whether the company /
should pay the per cent tax since /
Feb. 4, 1918, and the matter ran /
along until Jan. 22, 1918. when the /
representatives OF the company ap- Il
peared before the city commission
and the matter was discussed. A
settlement was then
made whereby the company agreed
not to raise it's rates on city street
lighting for the year ending Sept.
i. 1915. and the city agreed not to
make any further claim for the
per cent tax upon electricity used i'm
the street railway department. II the
rates for city street lighting had
been increased on Jan. 22, 1915 by
the addition OF the war emergency
surcharRe Of 10 per cent, which was
added TO the electric light bills OF
customers IL would have meant an
additional charge against the city OF
approximately $3.50 q month and
would have amounted to Sl,l20 by
Sept /, 1918. or more than the en-
tire amount OF the 2 per cent tax