The morning call., 1893-04-16
THE WATER CASE IN COURT.

When the Spring Valley Water Company
inspired Mr.. Rogers with the novel idea that
the Mayor does not constitute part Of the
city government. and has nothing 10 do
with fixing water rates, it embarked in a
contention Of which it did not foresee the
end. And that end may be something en-
tirely unexpected.
AS the case stands existing water rates
are in force till June 80. If Mr.. Rogers ad-
heres to his position there is no power
anywhere to fix rates when they expire.
He cannot make rates, for he has not the
votes in the board to override the veto, and
the Mayor cannot make rates, for he hasn't
the votes either. Thus, unless the Super
visors retire from their revolutionary atti-
tude there will be no rates after June so.
The company will have to supply water as
usual after that date, for if it does not the
State will interfere and will take possession
of the works and operate them through a
receiver; and if it supplies water it Will be
able TO collect for the service no more than
jury viii allow. which may not be much.
The application Of Collins, water con-
sumer. for 4 writ of mandate against the
Supervisors will be heard by Judge Gar
Der tomorrow week. But it is not easy TO
see what decision the Judge can render be-
yond an obiter dictum on the law of the
case. In other places, writs of mandate
Issued against Supervisors commanding
them to do their duty have not generally
proved effective. They have reminded OBJ
servers OF the old adage about leading a
horse to water. Perhaps ii may be taken
for granted that the Supervisors will not
wait to be sent to Jail for contempt, but
that If Judge CARRIER decdes-as it would
seem he must-that the Mayors veto must
stand until 1t is overTuled by nine votes,
they viii go to work to make a new water
schedule. But Mr.. Rogers tells us that he
proposes to carry his point to the Supreme
Court-perhaps TO the Supreme Court of the
United States; in that case everybody will
be older before final decision is rendered,
and in the meantime. what are consumers
TO pay for water, and how will the bills be
collected?
The Spring Valley Company must surely
have some one in its employ who could warn
it Of the folly Of its proceedings. Every
intelligent citizen Of San Francisco sees
through the sham of the Rogers order. Il
takes no account of increased consumption
and decreased running expenses. Under
the disguise of a pretended reduction it Is
in fact no reduction at all. 1t was a piece
Of impudence to assume that the people of
NhG NllS dao 81 lEuuI&uL lndL lIEY COnlu De
deceived by such an imposture Bat the
company capped the climax of impudence
when it followed up this pretended reduc-
tion by an attempt TO repeal the constitu-
lion and the consolidation act by mere
resolution of the board. Some pretty tai
things have been done in Eastern cities
New York, Chicago and st. Louls--but in
none of them was 1t ever attempted 10 dis
franchise the chief magistrate of the city In
order to push through fraudulent ord-
nance. These Spring Valley people seem
to have become so infatuated over their
past gains that they have forgotten the first
principles of municipal government
Unless the DTecedenis OF the past are all
misleading the conduct of the company
will lead to trouble for its stockholders.
No m0neyed corporation can 20 on forever
defyiDg public opinion and trampling on
private rights. There always comes a time
when the community, however long-suffer-
ing it may be, turns and rends its spoliator.
The hour and the occasion of the outburst
are matters of accident. In this case, what
the Spring Valley has 10 fear is an asser-
tion Of popular sovereignty through the
exercise of eminent domain. Under the
law the company is entitled 10 be paid for
any property which is taken for the public
use. But the value or the property must be
appraised by jury, and that jury will be
authorized 10 look into all the circ1m sta nces.
Some Of the questions which will arise in
the controversy are questions which the
company viii hardly dare to ventilate For
instance, it claims that properly which 1t
acquired to control water sources outside of
| its present chief source Of supply was pur-
| chased in order TO secure to the city al,
ample supply, and should therefore be paid
| for by the city. II it can prove this the
award of the jury would probably be salts
factory to the company. But ii it should be
| shown that any or all Of these outside prop
critics were acquired not for the benefit of the
| city. but in order to prevent the city or any
rival water company from establishing
new water works, the case would assume a
| different aspect and, the jury would be apt
to find that the Spring Valley should not be
repaid outlays which it made TO prevent
| competition. The controversy, If it arises,
| will briste with other delicate questions,
which it is not the interest of the company
to stir up. 1t is in this point Of view that
the Spring Valley seems to have been i'll
advised when it precipitated the present
| contention.