The morning call., 1893-04-13
is THE MAYOR A FIdUREHEAD ?


The attempt of the Board Of Supervisors
TO deprive the Mayor Of his veto power is
revolutionary. II is on a par with Andrew
Johnson's schemes to strip the Senate of its
right TO confirm or reject appointments.
Mr. Rogers argument that the clause Of the
constitution respecting water rates does not
specifically mention the Mayor is mere
chicanery. The intention OF the clause was
to deVolye upon the city government the
right OF fixing rates, so as to protect con-
sumers; II the Mayor Is not part and parcel
of that government, what is be p?
This is matter which must be governed
by the plain rule of comm mon-sense. The
law entrusts the municipal government
with the power to say what shall be fair
charge for water. The power is not con-
ferred on part Of the government, but on
the whole. The Mayor is the head and
front of that government. 1t cannot legls-
late without his assent. unless his views are
oVerridden by the legal two-thirds of the
Supervisors. The board can. no more act
without the Mayor, in passing an ordinance,
than he can act without the board. The
law cOntemplates their joint action. and to
imply that one can act without the other Is
setting at defiance its plain meaning. There
is nothing in the accidental omission Of the
Mayors name When it is provided in a
statute that Congress may do this or that,
1t is not stated that the President must as
sent; that is understood. When Congress
declares that q State Legislature may pass
an act to accomplish given object. 1t does
not say that the Governor must sign the act;
that Is taken for granted. So when the
constitution provided that the Supervisors
should fix water rates, it meant the Super
visors and their coordinate branch. the
Mayor. ANY other construction of the
provision would involve an absurdity.
Mr.. Rogers and the Spring Valley Water
Company are probably as well aware OF all
this as any one else. But the former
has the natural proneness of lawyers to
find legal mares nests, and the Spring
Valley is willing to spend little money to
determine how fal it is monarch of all it
surveys. 1t Is probably the'best judge of its
own interests, and t is not seeking guidance
from newspapers. II it were, it might
he Apostle TO remind it that 1t is
treadiug rather too closely in the
footsteps of the railroad. and trying the
public patience too severely. For many
years its charges have been the subject of
regularly recurring protest From the days
when John f. Swift was retained 10 defend
the rights of water-consumers up 10 the
present time il has been the firm conviction
of the people of this city that they were
overchargeG for water, and that there was
no reason why the rates prevailing in East
ern cities should not be adopted here. 1t
has also been their conviction that the COM
pany obtained the right OF levying eXor-
bitant tolls on water consumers by bribing
one Board Of Supervisors after another.
This last oryiction has led TO the corollary
that the gains of the company must be
large, or they could not afford to buy Super
visors, and in this opinion they have been
confirmed by the exhibition OF wealth which
the leading stockholders in the company
have made.
Leading minds In the company have long
inclined to the belief that the eventual
purchase of the water works by the city is
a foregone conclusion; and in preparing
ordinances for the Supervisors to pass they
have been governed by desire to estab-
lish basis for q high valuation of their
property, as we'll rs by 4 concern for imme-
diate dividends. But when the condem-
nation Of the works comes before jury,
ali this framework of deception win be torn
away. II 1t can be shown that the company
in lis statements has valued $50 worth Of
property al Sl00, and has, with the con-
hANauCc VI 0upclNiSOAsy tUlIoCbtu HUN Gu
sumers six per cent on that valuation,
when the income of such investments in
other cities rarely exceeds four. the jurors
will be inclined to scrutiniZs with suspicion
any and every contention which the COM
pany may put forth. 1t cannot but be
swRyed by such evidences of character as
the past record of the Spring Valley affords.
Jurors are but men; if man goes before
them with the taiRt of habitual corruption
on his brow, they are likely to deal more
harshly with him than they would with one
who had clean record. 1t is in this point
of view that the receUt attempt of the
Spring Valley TO dispute the Mayors right
to veto o water ordinance seems to be a
mistake. No one can be persuaded that q
practice which has prevailed for a score of
years has been founded on error; an effort
to mako it so appear cannot but recoll on
him who makes it,