Los Angeles herald. [volume] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1890-1893, 1891-11-10

city, or city and county, or OF any viii
lage or town, whether incorporated or
unincorporared, or of any settlement
consisting OF not less than ten families,
or OF any public buildings belonging to
the state, or to any college or university.
There can be no doubt of the right of
the city to condemn lands or rights of
way for sewer purposes, and it may con-
denim as many rights Of way as may be
necessary for the proper distribution of
the sewage. 1t Is certainly as much of
a public use TO have lateral connections,
in order to sell or dispose Of the sewage
for purposes of irrigation, as it is to
have the right of way for the purpose of
wasting the sewage by running it into
the ocean, and am of the opinion that
the city should condemn all rights Of
way necessary for the outfall, as we'll as
for lateral connections for the purpose
of distributing the sewage for the pur-
pose of irrigation. A great many OF the
questions which will arise have been
settled in the case OF City of Pasadena
vs.. Stimson, decided September IT,, 1891,
in which case the supreme court held
that the city had a right to condemn a
right of way for the purpose OF conduct
ing it's sewage to sewer farm.
| w uilC bilc dubWCI W bliO uIbb QuCbJlOA
disposes of the necessity OF answering
the second, l will state that section 1901
of the civil code provides:
Any person may, without further leg
islative action, acquire private property
for any use specified in section 1888 Of
the Code OF Civil Procedure, either by
consent of the owner or by proceedings
had under the provisions Of Title VII,
Part III of the Code of Civil Procedure |;
and any person seeking to acquire prop
erty for any Of the uses mentioned in
such title is ian agent OF the state" or
"person in charge OF such," within
the meaning of those terms as used in
such title.
| Among the uses recited in section
1888 OF the Code of Civil Procedure is
that of supplying mines and farming
neighborhoods with water. l believe
that under this section right of way
could be condemned by individuals for
the purpose of supplying a neighbor-
hood with sewage for irrigation, as
sewage is 90 per cent water, and the
fact that it is not pure water should not
interfere with the right to use the same
by neighborhood if it so de-
sires. The right OF an individual to
condemn property has been upheld
in Moran VS.. Ross, 70 Cal. 1852; and
while such right is questioned by Chief
Justice Beatty in the same case, in 70
CAL $50, for the reason that the consti-
tuition implies that such right can be
only exercised by corporation, yet the
doubt, if any, could be solved by the in
dividuals forming corporation for the
purpose of supplying their neighborhood
with water. The act of March z, 1857,
commonly known as the Wright act,
also gives the power OF eminent domain
to districts organized under it's provis-
ions. But, as l have stated before, the
easiest and best method is to have the
city condemn all routes necessary. As
soon as the engineer has completed a
final survey will institute suit.
This official also reported regarding
the moving of houses, recommending
that the street superintendent and
council agree on rules governing such
matters.
At the afternoon session the following
message from the mayor was read:
To the Honorable the Council of the City of
herewith return the demand OF
George A. McLain for 1926 (clerk No.
54O1), for excavating and filling Temple
street. To approve this demand would
be a palpable violation OF the charter,
which (after providing how the city may
become liable under written contract)
reads as follows "But the council, by
due ordinance. may authorize any Of
ficer, committee or agent of the city, to
bind the city without contract in
writing for the payment of any sum of
money not exceeding $780," There has
been no contract or ordinance authoriz-
ing this work. There are certain safe
guards thrown around the expenditure
OF public moneys in our fundamental
laws, and it is not in the power OF any
official or body of officials to violate
these wise limitations, and this case
furnishes good example of the danger
we incur when we do so.
This demand does not bear the APP
proyal of the engineer, the street super
intendent, or any other official that the
work has been performed, and so far as
any record evidence goes, we have none
whatever to show that any work has
been performed. On an offer in writing
OF Mr.. McLain to do this work, he says:
Payment to be made when the work is
fully completed to the satisfaction OF
street superintendent" Even this lit
tie precaution is ignored, for the super
intendent of streets has not approved
it; in fact, the superintendent of streets
has had nothing to do with it. When
we recognize the doctrine that public
works can be let, and public moneys
paid therefor without advertising
for bids, without competition, with
out ordinance or requisition, and with
out any provision regarding inspection
OF the work, and without approving the
work, and without any certificate that
the work has keen done; we establish
dangerous precedent even were there no
limitation in the law prohibiting the
same but the provisions of the charter,
under which we obtain the control of
public moneys, and by virtue of which
we are entrused with the affairs of the
municipality and authorized to expend
public moneys, provides in plain Ian
| guage that it must not be done, to do SO
would be to enable officials of the city
government to farm out the public work
Of the city to particular favorites at their
own prices, to be done way satisfactory
| to themselves, and to pay for the
same without any knowledge on our
part that the work has been done. We
should not throw down the bars that
| the charter of the city has wisely pro-
| vided for the protection of public mon
| eys, in this unsafe manner. Under the
| character it becomes the duty of the
mayor to pass on the expediency or in
expediency of expanding all public
money. The treasurer of the city cannot
| bo Jacollxy roochad axcept thr0uuh the