The morning call., 1893-04-12

special law for San francisco or Sacra-
henta. 1t legisiated for all the Boards of
supervisors. and let them be governed ly
the rules and regulations of local charters.
Now the consolidation act gives the
Mayor he fpower to veto the water ordi-
na1ee, because it involves the expenditure
OF money over the sum Of $500 There Is
no doubt on the subject whatever"
Supervisor Denman, who has q sort of
sen Elastic grasp of the questions lie han
dteS, mastering all the details, was asked
what he thought would be the outcome, IL
the bt ard took the same action at the next
meeting as it lid on Monday night. and the
courts ala not decide the question before
July Twin !, n. n.n o.,,n.n.. $780,, o.
asked.
mo. it will not" was the answer. "Of
conrse the Mayors veto will be called up at
the next meeting The board will probably
"a the same action. If 1t Goes. the ques-
mandamus proceeding. Now, if the ques-
tlon is not settled before July l The old
ORDER Will expire. The new order being in
itigatlon cannot take effect. Therefore
there Will be no water ordinance in exist
ence. There was a case Of this kind in
1889 when f"r six months the city was
without water ordinance owing to the
TACT that tie Spring Valley Company
took The proposed ordinance 10 the Supreme
Court and the old one lasted its legal term.
vlsors can draft and pass a water ordinance
after July l. We are compelled TO fix water
rates annually and within a reasonable
time. III we do not we are liable 10 be pun
lsned and sued for damages by the water
company. SO you see there is 10 chance of
the old ordinance standing. We must
arrange new schedule"
why did you publish the Mayors veto
message when the board had ordered that
no acllon be taken in the matter, and when
YOU Hau stated after the maQffpU haf
would obey the orders of The board ?" was
asked OF Clerk Russell yesterday afternoon.
had reason for doing So" replied
CIerk Russell, and good one, toe. At
hrst blush, after looking at Supervisor R1g-
ers resolution stating that no action DO
taken, L thought 1t obli;erated the message
entirely. subsequently, when l came to
examine the resolution, / found that ii
referred to the Mayors veto, esignated as
an order, and l saw that l had to publish IL,
because it was made alive by the Rogers
resolution. L had TO publish what the
Rogers resolution referred to. l recognized
tie TACT that the veto message could not be
omitted from the publication of the resOlu-
tior. Now, what action the board will take
In the matter do not know. The courts
Will have to settle the matter"
How can the courts take cognizance Of
the matter?" was asked.
Any ratepayer can bring a suit" replied
Clerk Russell. HE can state that under
the new ordinance he will be obliged 10 pay
higher rate than is justified, and then call
In question its validity from the fact of its
having been improperly rassed, no action
having been taken on the Mayors veto"
will you put the Mayors veto on the
clip of unfn ished business to be taken up
the next meeting OF the board ?"
1T is not within the purview of my duty
to put 1t on the clip. The board ordered
that no action be taken in the matter and
must obey it. STILL any member can call up
the veto message, and 1t can come before
the board in that way"
"Ihe Mayors veto message was pub
lished after ALL" said Supervisor Hinton,
gleefully. THAT completes the message.
and IL has passed through the necessary
forms.
You see, il the message had not been
published, and the courts had afterward
decided that the Mayor had the power to
veto, the message not having gone through
the forms prescribed by law, might he NULL
fed. This would he another delicate ques-
ton to tackle.
There is one point about this business
which has not been touched upon" said
of the law which says you cannot do indi-
rectly what you cannot do directly. Now.
the law requires that two-thirds vote is
necessary TO override the Mayors veto.
Yet they come along and by vote of to
veto at all. Thus by less than two-thirds
vote they nullify the Mayors veto or over
ride in a roundabout way.
II do not wish TO attack the honesty of
any member of the board" said Supervisor
Hinton, "but l must say 40 not like this
sharp trick work. Ii does not look well to
spring such resolution as Rogers did so
suddenly. Such resolution would come
with better grace from Attorney Herrin of
the Spring Valley Company"
Il have no opinion on the MAYORS right
to veto water ordinance" said City and
County Attorney Cresswell when ap-
preached on the subject. The question has
not been submitted TO Inc and | have not
looked up The various points and authori-
ties. 1t is for this reason that would not
like to express opinion. l must say,
however. without touching on the merits
of the question, that the point raised by the
Rogers resolution is very interesting one
for the lawyers"
'It is interesting to the ratepayers also,
who have to go down in their pockets" was
suggested.
THAT is so. But 1t Is a question, now
being raised for the first time, that should
be decided by the courts. Precedent and
custom are not always right, and violations
of law sometimes go on until adjudicated
By this do not mean to say that the Mayor
has no right to veto a water ordinance. l
only think 1t would be better to have the
m