The herald., 1893-05-24
ARE THE WATER BONDS LEGAL?
Important Injunction Suit Be-
gun in the Superior Court.
Acts of the City Authorities Claimed
TO Be Illegal,
"A Big Fight on Hand to Restrain the
Issue of $4,000 Water
Bonds-1ext of the
Complaint.

Below will be found complaint In q
suit against the city council, brought by
William Ferguson. 1t is matter of the
greatest interest to all property owners,
aud should be read by every taxpayer.
The suit ia to restrain the city from SELL
ing and issning the city water bonds, for
which number OF bids are now await
ing action by the city council.
1t was brought by William Ferguson,
and Is against the city and the council.
The complaint filed yesterday is volu-
minous document OF 38 type written
pages, and sets out at length the history
of the water franchises granted by the
city for years past. 1t is given herewith
in full.
The original agreement made by the
city with j. S. Griffin. P. Beaudry and
Solomon Lazard July 20, 1868. is given in
full. 1t shows that for $500 an
nually they received q franchise
for waterworks for 80 years from
date, at which time the city
agreed to pay them the value of their
plant, to be aecertained by arbitration if
necessary; the city slso agreed to make
no other lease, aale, contract, grant or
franchise to any person or persons for
the sale or delivery of water to the citi-
zens during the continuance OF the con-
tract.
The various transfers OF this franchise
by the original company are stated in
the complaint.
Also the ordinance passed by the city
council september 6, 1892, provides that
public necessity demands that the city
should own and construct it's own sys-
| tenn of water works, and the various
ordinances and proceedings by which
| the election was held when the city
| voted to issue bonds to the extent of
1926, 900 for the purpose OF carrying out
the design.
The complainant AYERS that there
were Irregularities in the publication OF
the ordinances which invslidated them,
and that the city council did not, as re-
quired by law, cause notice of the
special election to be published for not
less than two weeks, nor for any time in
any newspaper in the city in the form
required by the act. It is alleged that
the procs edings referred to did not con-
fer upon the city clerk any authority
whatever to publish the notice, or any
authority for holding the election.
The complaint further alleges that the
whole number of votes cast for the is
suance OF the bonds was 1919, and
against 1875, and AYERS that there were
not at the time the election was held
| IL ,463 qualified electors OF the city of
Los Angeles.
The ordinance calling for bids for the
bonds is quoted, and the complainant
alleges that the proceedings did not
) authorize the sale or issuance of the
bonds.
It is claimed that there was no neces-
sity for the construction of the system
| proposed In the plans ana specifications
prepared, and that the proposed works
will not. il completed, constitute any
system for the supply of the inhRbi-
tants of the city, but that it was q plan
for the construction OF works for supply
ing ANAL portion OF the city, and in
opposition to a system already con-
structed and in full operation at the
time OF the passage OF the ordinance in
question. 1t is further claimed that If
constructed il would not be used by the
city for supplying its inhabitants with
water at any place in competition with
the city water company, by reason OF
the original contract of 1858 before
mentioned.
II is alleged that false representations
were made that the city would derive a
large revenue from owning its own
water aystem, and that it has not au-
thority under the constitution and laws
of California to charge any rates or COM
pensation whatever for furnishing water
to its inhabitants.
1t is also contended that the city
council did not FIRST have plans and esti-
mates made by competent engineer
who had had successful experience in
such work before the question Of incur
ring indebtedness for such Improve
ments had been submitted to vote.
The complaint refers to the opening of
bids for the bonds by the council and
alleges that unless restrained they will
act affirmstively upon them, notwith-
standing the alleged defects and irregu-
larities, and that the effect of the issu-
ance will be to cause o large apparent
indebtedness of the municipality and to
depreciate all the property in the city.
A preliminary Injunction lie therefore
asked to restrain the sale of the bonds,
and upon the final hearing that it be
made perpetual. The suit was assigned
to Judge Wade's department, and he
will take up the hearing for q prelimi'
nary injunction Monday morning, May
goth.
United States Senator White and
Chapman & Hendricks are of counsel
for plaintiff.
The following is the text of the COM
plant:
In the superior court of the state o
California, in and for the county of Lot
Angeles.
William Furguson, plaintiff, VS.. The
} City of Los Angeles, municipal corpo
ration, Freeman G. iced, W. III. Rhodes
G. w. Campbell, Thomas Strohm, +
M. Nickel, f. S. Munson, Geo Pessell
John I. Gaffey and Daniel Innes, con
stituting the council of the city OF l.o
! Angeles, acknowledgements.
Now comes the plaintiff in the above
, entitled action and complaining OF tht
defendants, for cause of action alleges
Firat--That the plaintiff is, and for
long time prior to the commencement o
this action has been, resident of til,
city OF Los Angeles, and is the owner o
! real and personal property in said city
) and is tax payer therein.
Second-That the city OF Los Angele
/ is a municipal corporation duly incor
/ porated under the laws OF the state o
California.
Third That Freeman G.. Teed, W. Fl
t Rhodes, G.. W. Campbell, Thoma