The herald., 1894-12-05
THE CITY'S WATER RIGHTS

- y i -,
City Attorney McFarlaud Addressss tho
Council on the subjec
City Attorney Mcfarland addressed
the following Communication regarding
the Spilman water suit to the city coun-
Gil yesterday:
Los ANGELES, Cal, Dec. 4. 1894.
To the Honorable Council OF Los Angeles.
GENTLEMEN while the controversy
which has been raging about the Spill
man suit has been terminated, yet l
feel that the people are anxious to know
that the rights Of the city to the waters
OF the river have been protected. Judge
Van Dyke stated In court when the
stipulation was made that it completely
protected all of the city's rights to the
river as we'll as to its sources. While l
was positive upon that point was Curl
GUS 20 know what other lawyers thought
OF this matter and consequently took
pains to get the opinions of eeveral lead.
ing attorneys, Who, having examined the
complaint and stipulation, and bsing in.
formed that there was about 107 acres
Of land, half OF which ran across the
river bed. they very kindly gave me the
following opinions:
Los ANGELES, GAL, Nov. 29, 1894.
To Charles Mcfarland, Esq, City Attorney:
DEAR SIR AT your request have ex.
amined the complaint together with the
stip ulation entered into in the Spilman
case, in which the city was called upon
and compelled to assert lite title to the
waters contained in 107 acres OF land
So acres of which lie upon a mesa ad-
joining the river bank and the remain
der OF which lies In the river bottom and
a portion running across the river bed.
In my opinion the city's right to eli the
waters Of the river, as we'll as its feeders,
sources, springs and underground flow,
in ell the lands described in the com
plant, including the river bottom, ie
fully and completely protected by the
stipulation in this suit. 1t certainly
could not have got any more had you
tried the case and reoeived all the city
claimed or could have claimed in this
matter, and l am of the opinion that
this stipulation which the city entered
into puts it in position to hereafter as
sert whatever rights it may have to the
waters of the river or to its sources, in
case any effort Is made by Developments
upon this land to leasen the flow of the
river. Very respectfully,
CIEfdEN III. w HITEs
have examined the papers in the
above case and concur in the opinion
of Senator White.
ROBERT N. BULLA.
I also concur in the opinion of Senator
White, above expressed.
STEPHEN G. HuBBELL,
i am familiar with tns questions in-
volved in the above mentioned suit
through the preparation of another suit
OF q similar character. and in my opin-
ion Mr.. Mcfarland obtained greater
| concessions for the advantage of the
city than the law or supreme court
would ever award to the city upon q
trial. R. II. F. VARIRL.
Los ANGELES, Nov. 80, 1894.
To Charles Mcfarland, City Attorney, Los An
geles, Cal
DEAR eIR:-.At your request We have
examined the stipulation entered into
by and between the attorneys for plain.
tiff and defendant, respectively, in the
action of W. T. Spilman VS.. City OF Los
Angeles. as publis he'd in the Express of
the 9th inst, aud would cay that, in
our opinion, said stipulation recognizes,
admits and protects the ownership of
said oity of Los Angeles In ell the waters
of the Los Angeles river, and also In all
the waters forming part OF lite sources,
feeders. springs. and all eubterranean
waters flowing into the same and tribu.
taries thereof. Yours truly,
WELLBoRN & Hutton.
Los ANGELES. CAL, Nov 80, 1894
Charles II. Mcfarland, Esq, City Attorney,
Los Angeles. Cal.
DEAR SIR:-I have examined copy
OF the stipulation entered into in the
case of W. 7. Spilmsn vs. The City of
Los Angeles. am OF the opinion that
the rights Of the city are completely pro.
tscted by subdivision third" fourth"
and fifth" OF that stipulation.
CLAUSES third" and "foursh' recog-
nizs the city's ownership of all the
waters of the Los Angeles river, and of
oil the waters forming part of its
"sources. underground flow, feeders,
springs and all subtegrsnean waters
flowing into the same and tributary
thereto;" while c,s1se ''fitl" limits the
right of Mr.. Spillman ITO develop and
use only 30 much Of said waters as do
not constitute part Of the sources,
feeders, springs, underground flow and
subterranean waters of the Los Angeles
rivers, and as not tributary thereto"
cannot conceive of any interest
which Los Angeles city can have In the
waters referred to in the stipulation sx-
cept the interest which is affirmatiyely
given to the city by clauses third and
fourth. and from which Mr.. Spilmsn ie
affirmstively excluded by the fifth
clause. Very respectfully yours,
w. P. GARDINER.
Los ANGELES, Cal Nov 80, 1894.
Charles Mcfarland, Esq. City Attorney:
DEAR SIR:-At your request we have
examined the stipulation entered into
by you on behalf OF the city in the suit
of w. I. Spilman, plaintiff. against the
city of Los Angeles, defendant.
I0 our opinion, you obtained for the
city in that stipulation q better settle
ment of the matter, and an adjudication
OF right in and for the city, more ad-
vantageous to the city than you could
possibly have obtained in trial of the
case.
By your discretion and acumsn the
interests of the public were not only
amply projected. but protected by q
great saving OF cost t. the city.
Onr atten.ion being called psrtiouist.
~ TO the question OF extent snd location
Of tbe land desoriDsd, we wiph 10 asy
that it is wnoily lmmateFial. tor whar-
ever the and dsseribnd iu the complsias
may be situated, or 1nstever shs
ameunt thereof, tho ssipal&non holde
seod 40 hstHseu shs parties 70 shs &C..
tioa, Vary feapscNaily gouFa,
LAsnae s WrLBa
Il viii oe oasetysG Ehsi was pa hca-