The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-03-22
WALLA WALLA LOSES.
Judge Hanford Decides in Favor
of the Water Company.
THE CITY SHOULD CONDEMN.
Ne HeIds ths water Cemrsny's 1rsa-
ehiss Valid, ssd the City Mast
ros Csmpsts VITA H

Decisions nave teen reDdssea of SsIkS
Hanford, Of the United States circuit
court, granting an injunction TO the Nasia
Waits Water Company 20 restrain the eitS
of wa,ia Walla from building water WORKS
and issuing bonds for the purpose; also
granting an injunction 10 Julia A Moore
90 prevent the city Of Wsiis Walls from IN
curing q bonded debt for water works.
In his decision on the water company
suit, Judge Hanford cissssh provisions Of
the city charter allowing levy Of three
mills for bIe and water purposes and al
loving the city TO grant franchise for the
construction Of water works for term not
10 exceed twenty i've years. also granting
the city power To establish water works
with the approving vote ofshree- ffths OF
the freeholaers or voters WAC pay taxes on
not less than $500 worth OF property. The
city Is empowered to condemn property
for the construction os water works and to
purchase or condemn water works already
erected. mortgaging them 10 secure the
purchase price. The limit Of the debt OF
the city Ii xed at *50.60.
The judge goes on to recite the alicea-
Aions Of the complaint as TO the contract
between the city and the water company.
This WAS made in iss7 and allowed the
company 10 lay PIPES in the streets, while
ths company undertakes to supply water
for sxtinguishing fires, flushing sewers
and other municipal purposes. To allow the
city to place hydrants not over one at each
street. intersection and 10 furnish water
Tor domestic purposes. etc. The contract
II to be forfeited in case of failure of the
company to falfi II and the city is to nay
ti.1OD year In quarterly instaiiments for
the water aud until the contract is voided
II not to become interested in any water
works except the one provided for in the
franchise. but shall have the right to con-
femn the comrany's plant for public use.
In June. 1888, an ordinance was passed
providing for the erection of water works
and laying OF pipes by the city and for the
Issue OF bonds Tor the purpose. these bonds
being approved by popular vote. In pur-
Duapce Of this ordinance, the city nos pro-
poses to construct water works and to sell
tho bonds. without condo mining the com
psny's plant. although the company has
complied with the terms Of its contract.
When the contract was made the city
could not have raised the money by taxa
ton or by incurring debt except in ex-
cess Of tho legal limit and could not
have secured the invest ment Of the neres-
sary money without the CONCESSIONS
granted. The company cannot success
fully compete with the city and therefore
the construction Of . city water works
would b equivalent to confiscation Of its
property. Therefore the company con-
tends that the procse iings of the city In the
matter would be In violation Of the consti.
tuition Of the United States prohibiting
laws which impair the obligation of con-
tsaets.
Tho contention OF tho city 10 that the
construction and maintenance OF water
works II part OF Its governm mental func-
hons which cannot be Invested by any con-
tract and that the provision for tho city to
pay II. 600 20 the company creates debt
in excess Of tho legal limit.
The court says that the arguments on
both sides can all be hsrmonized with the
conclusion 1t has reached. II holds that
Tho establishment of water works combines
The character of n governmental agency
with that OF private business enterprise,
but that the city was not required by its
charter 10 at once undertake tho work
The limitations on its taxing power and
right to incur debt rendered IL impossibls
for the city to undertake the work when
The contract was made and therefore the
provisions OF the charter allowing il to au-
thorize private 'indsvid uals or q company
10 do so were of greater practical utility.
The decision proceeds:
The city in making this contract with
The complainant exercised A power granted
30 IL expressly and specifically by the leg
islature and the wisdom or reasonableness
Of Its action In this regard eanno. be qnes-
lioned in the courts"
The court goes on to say that the con-
tract reserved to the city the right to ac-
anIre the comnany's property bv pur-
chase. so that IL Is not obnoxious to the
\ powers granted by the legislature. aud
adds:
Having by means Of this contract in
uueed the water company 70 make large
Investments of capital in improving aud
fniafginS Its plant. the city cannot at this
une honestly destroy the value OF the
plant instead of purchasing or condemn
tng and paving Tor the same according 10
Ito promise.
u II further held that the city has not
Invested itself of any Of its powers, and
That the contract Is no bar to the exercises
Of them. but IL has bound Itself 10 take
over and pay for il. Therefore the present
scheme 10 unlawful as an attempted re
radlation of a binding promise The AZ
tregste amount To be paid by the city un.
Ger the contract cannot he regarded as a
aebt IN excess Of tho limit, az this item of
expense Is part of the regular current ex.
psnses incidental 10 running the city.
In the case of Julia A. Moore against
The city, the court says that The complain
ant Is only especially interested because
aer taxes will b. increased If The debt j.
Incurred, bat that the reasons for granting
IN injunction 10 the water company are
not sufficient to Justify granting Que n
ahis case. lie holds that the city has
,eaeme proposed is an invasion Of
HE rights OF the water company.
A. ID the other grounds on
which the injunction is asked. he
says the claim thst the Limitation on the
power at the city 70 incur debt has not
ecen repeated has been decided adversely
In the case vt NssieT VS City Of Seattle BY
The state supreme court. The point that
lac voters 81 the bond election should
have been registered has been MOI and
answered by the stSte supreme court in
Tho case ol Seymour yA Tacoma The
same aeoisloa was adverse 70 the Gem
ciaiaant N regard 10 the claim that the
tote Of the csty merely authorized
Tue city council 80 provide far ,hs
scnstraction Of water works. and ,hs: thu
ordinance, having been passed before the
toie. Is yosd. The claim tia. the or,fi.
aance 10 invalid because the bonds A.. 10
20 raid for in gold coin Of the present
standard weight and fneuess il as, over
ruled. a. the authority given by the state
10 provide means for constructing worsS