The herald., 1894-01-07
PART II-PAGES 9 TO 16.

readily see, is such that if, in the future
any of drainage should reach ths
Arroyo Seeo, it would be al
come point below where the
water OF the water company is gathered
Such an untrue and uncalled for asser'
tion OF the committee would seem tc
have been made purely for the purpose
of trumping up some excuse for its gross
undervaluation of the property. For il
similar objections we're 10 prevail the
committee would have to condemn the
water of the Los Angeles river as unfit
for use on account of being under the
contingent drainage from cesspools OF
present and future settlements in and
along the upper valley of that river.
The committees action in regard to
the item above referred to is sufficient
to show with what q spirit Of partiaiity
and unfairness they made out the whole
report in regard to the property which
they proposed to purchase.
One other erroneous statement of the
report will here refer to. which is in
regard to the title of the Crystal Springs
Land and Water company to the waters
and water rights acquired by that COM
pany from the owners OF the San Rafael
and Los Feliz ranchos, lying on the Los
Angeles river just above the city limits.
The report is greatly in error in as
suming that the city is the exclusive
owner of those waters, end in saying
that it was go decided by Judge Van
Dyke in the late case OF the City vE.
Crystal Springs Land and Water COM
pany.
The records in that case plainly show
that the only decision made in that case
was in favor of the Crystal Springs com
pany on it's motion to non-suit the city,
on the ground thatth city had failed
to make out any case sufficient to call
on the Crystal Springs Water company
to put in any evidence on its part. And
thereupon the court rendered judgment
in favor of the water company against
the city for costs and disbursements,
etc.
1t is true, however, that the Judge in
cidentally and gratuitously remarked
that upon the evidence of the city alone
and in the absence of the evidence of
the Crystal Springs company which was
not before him, and which be could not
know or anticipate, he was of the opin-
ion that to the extent of ueing the water
within the patent limits of the city, it
ifdQ u Ab w WIG o0O Va oAO
waters OF tue Los Angeles river river saE.d ita
sources, ignoring, however, any right in
the city to use any OF those waters out
side of it's patent limits; and thus infer
entially leaving to the water company
the prior right to the uHe Of so much OF
said waters as shall or may be used by
the city outside of its patent limits.
What would have been the opion OF the
..xI AnI hoax. fnr fha (lruq.
tai Springs company to put in it's evil
dence, may be conjectured by one who
will read the bill OF equity recently FLED
in the United States circuit court against
the city by the said water company for
the purpose of queting its title to the
water rights claimed and dexeloped
by it.
Without attempting to enumerate the
evidences of its title there in alleged, it
may be worth while to refer to the un-
disputed fact that the United States
patents to the ranches San Rafael and
Los Felis, under which the water com
pany derives title to its water rights,
were both founded on and relate back
TO Mexican grants of prior date to the
Mexican grant to the pueblo OF Los An
geles, which ia recited IN the patent oil
Tile Clby hS blid lOunudAAOA Vi Abn tA-Aos
These ranch grants with their appur-
tenant water rights having heen thus
previously granted, it would seem clear
that the subsequent grant to the city Of
lands lying below could not dives- the
title OF the said grants either to their
lands or their appurtenant water rights.
But without reference to the dates Of
those grants, SO far from the city being
the owner of the water rights referred
to, as claimed by the said committee, "a
full hearing of all the evidence on both
sides will show the title to be clear in
the water company.
| have thus casually noticed some of
the incorrect representations OF The re-
port OF the COMMITTEES upon which the
offer in your letter is based, for the pur-
pose of disabusing the mind OF the city
council OF the impression which itseems
to entertain in regard to the value of
and title to the property it offers to buy,
and to show that it is upon no captious
ground that the offer contained in your
letter cannot, under the present circum-
stances, be entertained.
Very respectfully,
S. II. MoTr,
Secretary of the Los Angeles City Water
Company and of the Crystal Springs
Land and Water Company.