The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-04-19
THE MAYORS VETO
A Precedent Found in the
Water Trouble.
City and County Attorney Creswell
Points Out the AnaIogies of the
Situation in 1885.

That Mayor Ebert has by no means ae-
| copied the situation mapped out for him by
tile Spring Valley Water Company and the
Solid Seven on Monday evening is indicated
by the fact that yesterday morning there
were 4 number OF secret consultations in
his Office with eminent legal lights. Exactly
what plan Of action was resolved on did not
transpire, but it is rumored that a surprise
! is being prepared for to-day.
This matter has not vet been officially
| brought before me-" said City and County
| Attorney CreSwell to a CALL reporter yes
! terday. In any case it viii take time for
ne 10 form my opinion and put it in shape
| for publication. 1 know nothing except
what ! have read in the papers about being
instructed to defend the Board OF Super
Yisors in the mandamus suit brought against
it by r. U. Collins TO determine as speedily
as possible the question as TO whether the
water order passed by the Board of Super
| visors on March p is subject to the veto
| power of the Mayor.
But l can say his much, that there is
| precedent in the case, which you will find
| in the report Of John Lord Love. then City
and County Attorney, filed February a.
| 1885, and embodied in the city and fnan-
| cial reports of that year. This opinion was
| very explicit, and dealt with this very ques-
/ ton Of the Mayors right to participate in
! the action had by the Board of Supervisors
| in fixing water rates"
This opinion Of Attorney Loves is too
| lengthy TO be reprinted in full, but the fol-
| lowing extracts are Of interest
To the Hon. ". B. FqyiceH, Chairman Of
Committee on Water and Wdter .SulDlies,
! BOUTd Of upeTGisOrs-DEAR SIR: am Ia re-
ceipt Of your favor OF the 14th INST. referring 10
| Tie question raised by Mr. NewIaudS, the aItor-
| ney Tor the Spring Valley Water Works, as to
| whether The duty Of fixing the annual wafer rate
| rests entirely with The Board Of Supervisors
without right or power OF The Mayor 10 partici-
pate in tie action, to interpOse his veto US 10
/ any action OF the board fixing such rates, and
| requesting my opinion thereon.
| / am OF The opinion That ihe rate to be collect
! ed for The use OF water supplies 10 the city and
| county, or to the inhabitants thereof should be
| fixed annually by The Board Of Supervisors by
| ordinance or resolution, to be passed To The
! same manner that other ordinances are passed
| by the board; and that before such ordinance
| can take effect It must be presented to the
| Mayor for his approval. If he approves lie
should sign It; # not, H. should return 1t within
| ten days 10 the board, with his objections I'm
| writing And sbouId II mi be fecaiveo ,,i1I,i1
| ten days il would become valid, the same as II
| II had received his signature.
| HE question, however, Is a very important
| one ana should b. definitely settled by Judi
| cial determination. H. is desirable to stop II
| possible. the friction which exists 10 a greater
| or less extent between The people. the Board OF
Supervisors and The water company. My opn-
| ion, as mailer OF course, does not authorita-
| lively settle anything, and, under the clrcum-
stances, see no objection 10 having the question
| rassed upon by the Supreme Court ana finally
| disposed Of, which can DO done in summary
manner. Yours respectfully.
JOHN LORD LOVE,
City aud County Attorney.
The water order in the case referred to
was passed by vote Of seven to five, hut
returned by Mayor Washington Bartlett.
! The board sustained the veto by the same
J vote. A second attempt to pass an amended
! order met with similar fate, tho Mayor
yetoiDg the order and the majority in lis
favor being too small to override his HoDor's
decision. The vote in this case was seven to
four. a third order, with a TX per cent re-
! duCtiOn On existing rates, was then passed
by the board and the Mayor vetoed this also
and it was finally passed over the veto on
June 90 1885.
You viii notice." said Mr.. CreswelI.
THAT the opinion of the City and County
Attorney may be asked for by the city
authorities, but it is not binding. 1t is
merely an opinion. 1t may be Ignored, as
in the case of the House of Correction re-
Gently. As l said before, this water matter
has not come before NE officially. | have
] not been asked for an opinion and to form
| such opinion would be a matter of time"