Los Angeles daily herald., 1874-11-07

4 Mr.. Titfany's Paper Lies.


What the Express expects to accom-
plish by repeating day after day that
Mr.. BEAUDRY is the owner OF, an ex-
elusive water franchise granted by
4 this city, is something which is just
now puzzling those who were until
recently Mr.. TIrF-ANY's best friends.
The statement is such q bald, palpable
and seemingly premeditated false
hood that its daily repetition is be-
coming monotonous to the people.
The fact Isl. and it has been several
times set forth in.the columns of the
HERALD, that Mr.. BEAuDRY has no
exclusive water franchise in this city.
Mark how plain a story shall nail Mr..
TIFFANY'S organ to the wall. In 1872
Mr.. BEAUDRY obtained permission to
convey water to a portion OF the city
to which the Los Angeles Water Com
pany refused to lay their pipes. He
did not ask for, did not receive and
does not claim an exclusive franchise
to furnish water in that or any other
locality The Los Angeles Water
Company may lay down pipes by the
side of those now laid down by Mr..
BEAUDRY and he will not offer the
slightest objection. This does not
look as though Mr.. BEAUDRY held or
claimed an exclusive franchise. As a
settler to the Express imaginary fears
that the city may lose by conflict be-
tween Mr.. BEAUDRY and the Los An
geles Water Company we. quote from
the proceedings Of the Council of
October oath, 1872 as reported in the
Star of November oath, 1872. The
subject under consideration was the
Mayors veto of the BEAUDRY water
ordinance.
DR.. Griffin fof the Water Company here
spoke. He said he had been advised by legal
authority that the contract as drawn might
lead to litigation hereafter. They hoped Mr.
Beaudry would strike water, but they wanted
the ordinance so drawn that there could be no
| interference hereafter with their rights.
The contract was read.
| DIR. Griffin said the document did not state
| where the water was coming from. If ii were
|
cured fran the Zanjas and the river his com
| pany might have no objections. They had
| paid for that water and they wanted to be pro-
| tected by positive declaration to that effect.
| The President put the question whether the
Council would adhere to the ordinance as
| passed, Notwithstanding the veto.
| Mr.. Beaudry said he thought the ordinance
should stand, as he was willing to give every
| guarantee to the Water Company that he, his
heirs and assigns would convey the right to
them whenever they saw fit to reimburse him
| for what he had expended.
Mr.. DennisOn said he saw nothing to gain
| by amending the ordinance. The Water Com
| pany had certain rights which Mr.. Beaudry
| nor any one else could interfere with.
/ The question was put and the veto was suS-
tained by 3 ayes to noes-it requiring two
| thirds vote to override the veto.
Mr. Beaudry offered to insert in the contract
4 that he would not use in his pipes any water
from the Los Angeles river, Messrs. Teed and
| Macy having said they would vote for ii with
| such amendment. -t,
DR.. Griffin having asked, Why not include
1 the zanjaS? Mr. Beaudrys said he thought this
| Board was elected to look after the interests
of the people, but he found that whenever q
proposition was made for the public benefit
| quarters. How could we expect men OF enter
1 prise to spend their means and energy in a
| place where such petty opposition had to be
| met Did anybody suppose he would have
| bought that hill property il he thought he was
| going to be prevented from getting water
| there. The objections were petty and ridicu-
| lous. r.a.
This settles the question Of conflict.
| If Mr.. BEAUDRY did not take the
water from the zanjas or the Los An
geles river, the Los Angeles Water
Company did not object, in fact, con-
.sented to his conveying water on the
hill lands. He has not taken the
water from either one or the other.