The Daily Alaska empire., 1935-08-17
CITY ANSWERS l. IN DOCK SUIT WITH TRIMMER
Defendants Claim Opera ton May Show Profit of
 Over $6,000. Annually

~0---NeNNN3 I'members of the City Council, and the Northland Transportation Com
 pany, an answer was today filed in 4 District Court to plaintiffs com
 plaint,
 ' The complaint which was filed in May seeks to have the court hold invalid the contract entered into between the City and the North land Transportation Company last
 April. The complaint was filed by
 D. B. Femmer as taxpayer and he
 IS represented by Judge James . Wicker;ham and Henry Roden. The
 complaint alleges that the City
 Council had no power to enter into the contract, and the plaintiff asks the court to declare the contract to be null and void and of no force or
 effect.
 By terms of the contract, which is
 dated April 24, the Northland Transportation Company agreed to land it's vessels at the city dock for a period of five years. and the city agreed to furnish a wharfinger and to handle the freight and make col lection of all charges, etc; the city to derive it's revenue from wharf age and doc kage charges, The Northland Transportation Company by the terms of the contract, guar antees the city a tonnage of 5000 tons per year. In other words, the city collects wharfage on all freight :fhandled. but if the amount of ton mage should fall below 6,000 tons in tany twelve months period, the Northland Transportation Company will pay at current rates the wharf age charges for handling an equiva- lent of 5000 tons.
 Improvements
 The city agreed, by the terms oi the contract, to make certain inn
 provements in the dock, consisting
 of new piling, covering portions oi
 the warehouse with galvanized iron and the construction of a sidewalk to the street These improvements
 have been made out of the genera l revenues of the City derived from [ taxation and other sources.
 The Territorial law Chapter AS <, Session Laws of 1855, gives the city { power Ito purchase. construct ol sl otherwise acquire, establish and op.
 crate public wharves, etc. The ,istatute contains a provision that nc public wharf shall be operated oi maintained by funds raised by tax ation, but from the revenue collect ed for the service rendered by sucf wharf, etc"
 City's Contention
 The answer which was filed today : by H. L. Faulkner, attorney for tht { city and the other defendants, set , up that the repairs, alterations ane i, improvements were made to thu city dock pursuant to the terms O the contract from the general reve. nues of the city, and that these i'm.
 provements and alterations cost
 P$5 ,692.80; that the total revenue tt
 date, that is, for the period iron
 April 27 to August IS, from the op. eration of the city dock has beer ] $4,13316, and that the total ex.
 lpenses of operation were $2,138.65 ; leaving net profit for the psriot from April 27 to August Is of $1 i, 994.51. It is alleged that on ths basis of the guaranteed tonnage y provided the expenses of operation remain the same. there will be ar annual profit of s6,452.70 from ths operation of the city dock.
 The answer, while admitting tha id the Improvements were made iron the general revenues of the city, al lleges that these Improvements dic not constitute operation nor mainte- Inance, but were in the nature oi I Af 4 Eexpenses incurred in order to "es- tablish" the dock or wharf. It is al
 legged that the city dock or whari
 had fallen into disrepair and that il
 had not been in use for approxi.
 mately one year prior to the date of the contract, and that 1t was no
 in condition to be used without the expenditures which the city
 incurred pursuant to the terms o
 the contract. The answer also al. tleges that it would have been i'm. possible to operate the dock as z public dock unless arrangement.
 were made by some steamship line
 by which a sufficient tonnage | could be guaranteed to provide al
 expenses of operation and mainte.
 nance.
 ~