Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-08-30

reads this contract, duly entered by botE
parties, signed, sealed and delivered
with all the solemnities known to the
law, and permit me to read to you the
very last clause in it:
The covenants herein expressed shall bs
| Dlndlng upon the heirs administrators and as
| slgns OF said first party, and upon the success
ors ano assigns OF the city of Los Angeles" II
s,s Is pretty good option,, | should think, fol
| provided only that I (Rose) be given the
preference to purchase fifty inches or such less
amount as may require OF the sewage at the
regular rates to be established by the city.
| ANDERSON ROSE"
ls that the way Mr.. Rose surrenders
his right to the sewage? He does it by
receiving $500, and we are to let him
nave the sewage anyway. It does seem
to me il we pay for the sewer and for q
right OF way we ought not to bind our
selves with any agreement that compels
us to keep this sewer open If we do not
desire to do 30, but must il we dispose
OF any to any one else.
Another answer to this objection is
this: Should the Council proceed to
operate under this option it is our
opinion that the clause authorizing Rose
to re.enter and possess said land in the
event the city should not supply the
stipulated amount of sewage, would de-
pend for its efficacy upon the question
whether the city were at fault"
Think of it If at any time the city is
at fault then Rose is entitled to re.enter
and take possession of the sewer. A
forfeiture follows. This is an answer to
my objection. is it? That is Just exactly
what said and why I object to this con-
tract, for it not only contains the
clause you refer TO-, but contains forty
odd covenants as well, which are Just as
binding as this one, and sit is our (the)
opinion)'' of this very remarkable COM
mittee, submitted as result of their
Investigations" that the right of Rose
to take possession of and plug
up forever the sewer depends
for its efficacy upon the ques-
ton whether the city is at fault" Rose
plugs it up and the question of the eff
cacy thereof simply depends on the ques-
tion whether the city is at fault the eff
eacy thereby is established if the city
is-and the forfeiture takes place. I did
not in my message say more"
You say further that "forfeitures are
not favored by the courts" Certainly
not, but what has the court to do,
whether it favors it or not, when for
feiture is explicitly provided for in a con.
tract. 1t certainly will not give such q
construction to an instrument where
there is any doubt about one being intend
ed but can any court relieve one from the
effect OF a forfeiture contained in a con-
tract deliberately entered into, and espe-
cially provided for. Sometimes it re-
lieves infants and persons of unsound
mind from the effects of their con-
tracts
1t is not necessary to be lawyer to
know that if we claim any right under
a contract, minor or otherwise, we must
comply with our part of the agreement
or surrender it. We cannot claim the
benefit of contract and refuse to COM
ply with it's conditions.
"And especially when such forfeiture
would obstruct municipal sanitary regu-
lation."
What has Mr.. Rose or this contract to
do with our SANITARY municipal regular-
tions"? He is not within the munich
pality, and the property, outside the
limits thereof, is not subject thereto. A
covenant in contract relating to land in
this city providing for forfeiture which
would "obstruct" "sanitary regula-
tion" of the city would be void; it could
not be enforced, because it is against the
law. municipal regulation being az
much OF a law in this city as the Consti-
tuition OF the State or of the United
States, when not in conflict Herewith. It
was lawyer who gave you the law, but
no lawyer ever penned such foolish
address.
Further, "that under no condition, ex-
cept breakage or repairing, will there be
30 small an amount OF sewage at Roses
ranch as he is entitled to under the
contract. 1t must always be largely in
excess"
Why should this large amount of
water be running in the sewers because
we are told by Mr.. Eaton that at least
that amount of water will be needed,
running constantly in the sewer, to flush
or keep the same clean, to prevent the
generation of foul gases therein? Let
me ask you why the three miles OF sewer
beyond where Mr.. Rose takes sewage out
does not need any sewer water to keep
it clean and to prevent the foul gases
from generating therein. If 1 under
stand our Engineer, it is also necessary to
run water constantly in the sewer to keep
it clean, but why Can that essentia
requisite be dispensed with in the three
miles of sewer below the outlet for Mr..
Rose? l know Mr.. Eaton may say
that the city will be compelled
to run enough to supply MIR. Rose
and to flush the sewer besides,
but, under your option, Mr.. Rose "may
take, for the purpose of irrigating his said
lands, as much sewage IN ercess of said
cubic foot per second as he may find
foUing in said main sewer" He can take
it all Ii running sewage is necessary to
keep the sewer in proper condition, why
this covenant in the contract? There is
no escaping the conclusion that the city
has been foolishly bound hand and foot
by lot of boys, who, in their anxiety to
get the handling of several millions of
money, have lost their heads and left the
bars down, and have but one comment
to make to the people who will be called
on to pay for all this foolishness-beware
''The Mayor is member of the Gun
Club" Not quite. 1 was until 1 saw
by the papers that the club was to re-
ceive $40, 900 from the city. l then de-
clined to own any stock in the club, and
assigned the same to the Hon. E. F.
Spence, with directions to him to pay
the same to the Orphans Home. This
whole address is written in so untrue
and ungentlemanly manner that l may
be pardoned when 1 say 1 believe the
object in making that statement was to
attract attention to that fact and to throw
odium, if possible, on me. And you see
you are even wrong in that. Nearly
every statement contained in this re-