The herald., 1897-09-21

cpir1ion on the validity of the water con-
tract. In the light Of the direct recon-
| mendations made In the communication
this occasioned some surprise. Coun-
| Gilman Toll made an earnest speech In
| support of the wishes of the city's coun-
sci and against the motion, pointing
out the dangers of the publication OF
the opinion and arguing that all that
the present condition Of the matter re-
quired was fully covered in what had
already been submitted Mr.. Dunn was
called upon and stated that the opinion
had been prepared in order to offset any
imputations of delay in the matter. He
had the opinion but unless compelled to
| do so would not make it public because
of the possible effect it might have up
| on future action in the matter in the
courts. He said he was tired of hearing
that there was an effort to delay matters
in his or other departments when such
an assertion was unqualifiedly false. II
| the opinion was to be made public and
any serious consequences followed he
did not propose that the blame for such
should rest with him.. If the council
wanted the opinion they could have it.,
but they must shoulder the responsible
ity. Mr.. Grider Insisted upon the opin-
ion at once, but at the suggestion of Mr.
Nickel the matter was deferred until
the afternoon session.
PRUDENCE AND PRECIPICES
The consideration of the question was
left until the last thing at the afternoon
meeting of the council. When it was
again brought up Mr.. Blanchard re-
newed his motion. Again Mr.. Toll took
the floor and made an appeal to the
council to abide by the wishes of the at
torneys as expressed in the communica-
ton of the morning session. He stated
that there was no present need of any
further Information on the subject, and
that to compel the delivery of fiat
opinion would be detrimental to the in
terests of the city. If the opinion stated
that the contract was illegal the citizens
would be ciamoring for immediate ac-
ton, when, according to the views Of
some of the most eminent attorneys in
the city this was not the time for haste
in so important matter. He also held
that the council would be in receipt of
all kinds OF wild suggestions that would
have to be considered If only for the
purpose Of declaring them not feasible
The city paid her attorneys we'll for
their services, and If their wishes were
to be disregarded in SO important mat
ter the offices might as we'll be vacated.
This did not change the determina-
ton of the council, and when the vote
was taken upon the motion only Messrs.
Toll and Silver voted against it, making
the vote six to two.
SILVER'S SPEECH
Before the opinion was produced,
President Silver called Mr.. Blanchard to
the chair and then proceeded to make
one of the most vigorous speeches that
has been heard in the council chamber
for some time. He began by saying
that he desired to explain his vote. There
had been inferences made that there
was a desire to "hang up the water
question and he wanted it distinctly un-
derstood that in casting his vote against
the receiving of the opinion he had no
such purpose or object in view. He be-
lieved in his own mind, and he was sure
he would be supported in that opinion
by many taxpayers, that the action of
the council in demanding of the city at
torney his opinion on the legality of the
contract would greatly retard any pro-
gress in the matter, for which all claim
ed to be working so hard l. e., the mu
nicipal ownership of the water works.
"These attorneys are either honest or
dishonest in this matter" said he, land
be it far from my purpose to charge the
latter against them. Why not take their
advice and respect it? If they report
that the contract is valid, your action
precludeS for them the possibility of
attacking it's validity in future; or, If it
be to the best interests of the city to de-
clare the contract invalid, then they can
not consistently combat 1t on. the
grounds that it is so, if they give an
opinion opposed to whatever position
they may desire to take. There is poll
tics in this, mark you. This Is but par
dering to popular clamor at the expense
and danger of the best interests of the
city. This is not, as see it., the duty
you owe to the people. 1t is playing into
the hands of the water company and
regret very much that the vote has not
been different"
No effort was made to reconsider the
ed to at once produce his opinion, which
he did. 1t is as follows:
THE OPINION
LOS ANGELES, Cal, Sept. 20, 1897.
To the Honorab BILE Council of the City
of Los Angeles-Gentleme In the mat
ter of the question Of the validity of the
contract between the city of Los Angeles
and Griffin ct al. predecessors of the
City Water company dated July 20, 1868,
l am of opinion:
Frst-That that portion of said con-
tract providing that the water compa-
ny's predecessors shall have ar. exclu-
sive franchise to furnish water to the
inhabitants of the city is invalid.
Second-That that portion Of said con-
tract providing that the rates for water
should not be reduced below the rates
charged at the time the contract was Ell
tered into is invalid.
Third-That those portions of the con
tract are valid and binding which relate
to property rights in the Improvements
and ncrements made by the water COM
pany to the plant originally turned over
to it by the city, and to the obligations Of
both parties to submit the value of such
improvements and increments to arbi-
tration and the obligation. of the city to
pay to the company the value thereof
so ascertained, and that the rights of the
citv arising under these provisions of