Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-08-30
Card from the City Attorney.

To THE PUBLIC-As l have been misquoted by
legal propositions involV ed In the sewer ques.
ton, and believing that 1t is my duty to give
the public all the information in my power, in
order that the voters of this city may cast an
intelligent vote upon the sewer question. wish
to make the following statement:
1 have been quoted as saying that the Super
ong the puSe road 6n the dsg thy
deed for the right of way from the Southern
Pacific Railroad Company was read in Council
tracts, options and deeds which gave US right
of way to the ocean, that the Supervisors had
the right to grant the city the right OF way
along the county road, and that the property
owners along the line of the road had the rig ht
to be compensated for any damage which they
could show that they had sustained by reason
OF the building of the sewer along the county
road. What that damage would be have no
idea, but am of the opinion that none of the
owners can show more than a nominal damage
This advice having been given in open Council
able disclosure. fhe Mayor in his mes
sage attacked the contract with Anderson
public as to the true effect of this contract.
Some call it an option and some contract, but
1t is both. Any agreement between two or
tract and deem it of no importance what it is
called, but 1t is the effect to which we should
look. committee was appointed by the Coun-
ocean. 1t secured the grant from the county
and having been assured of the grant from the
Southern Pacific Railroad Company, they then
had to secure the right of way from point on
the county road at Roses property to the ocean,
| From that point the engineer had made three
land, and h i two others further north. Desiring
to go as far from Santa Monica as possible, it
was thought best to secure the right of way, II
possible, across the firstnamed route. At that
time it was not known whether we could Sc,
cure the Gun Club property, and in fact we did
| not know until June 30th, when the option was
wpakS' labor with Rose and his attorney.
his land at any time within three years, upon
was wa no condition in the contract that the city
should pay anything in case it did not accept
the agreement within three years, and the city
mere privilege or option by which the city mas
all to gain and nothing to lose, and If we do not
avail ourselves Of it we stand just as If 1t had
opon on e Gnn Grub
Of $4,000, for which we paid nothing
cepted. We did not tHSE know then, nor do know
now, whether we will build this sewer from the
county road across Rose and the Gun Club. or
on one of the other routes surveyed. We have
our choice, and can selecs the one which will
prove the cheapest and best, and should we
take the Gun Club property, and desire to cross
Roses property on any other line than the one
right of way. should it be deemed better and
| cheaper to pay Rose in gold coin for right Of
way than to pay him with sewage, ana should
we take neither the Rose or Gun Club PROPOSE.
| tions, we can condemn across any properly we
may desire. The contract is not in accordance
with the one drew up, but was presented by
Mr.. Rose, who stated that he was giving us q
three-years' option for nothing, and thought he
should dictate the terms. This contract was
publicly read in the Council at its meeting Of
July 22d, approved, and the Clerk ordered to
sign it on behalf of the city, and think it was
unjust to the Council, Engineer, Clerk and my
self for the Mayor to attempt to lead the pub.
lie to believe that an onerous contract had
been secretly made by the Council by which
the city was bound up with a lot of conditions
from which 1T could not escape.
Respectfully,
g. MCFARLAND,
City Attorney.