The herald., 1897-09-21
A FORCED
OPINION
Only Pandering to Popu-
lar ClamOr"
PRUDENCE AND PRECIPlCES
THE CITY ATTORNEY FORCED TO
SHOW HIS HAND
PRUDENCE AND PRECIPICES
THE CITY ATTORNEY FORCED TO
SHOW HIS HAND
The Validity Of the Contract With the
Water Company-Arbitration
Will Be Compulsory

The position, which will be taken by
the city when the time comes for con-
test of the validity Of its present con-
tract with the water company,--and
that time is almost certain to come be-
fore the question of the municipal
owership of the water works IL settled
has been disclosed. Against the ex-
pressed wishes and advice Of City At
torney Dunn and Attorneys Lee and
Scott, who are associated with him in
the existing litigation upon this subject,
the city council yesterday, by vote of
6 to 2, demanded of the city attorney
deliberate opinion as to the validity of
the present contract. The opinion was
promptly presented and read as soon as
the vote was announced, but the vote
was not taken before the two members
who voted against the motion had done
all in their power to convince the other
members that their course would seri-
ously handicap the city in any future
proceedings.
President Silver and Mr.. Toll earnestly
urged the council not to act hastily in
the matter, but impelled by curiosity as
to what the opinion would be or by some
other motive, suggested by President
Silver, the views Of the city attorney
were demanded and were received.
That part of the proceedings Of yes
terdays ses ssion Of the city council which
consisted of the consideration of the
water question was the most important
work Of the day to the taxpayers. The
attorneys for the water company know
as a result of the councils action just
what the position of the city is In the
matter, but the city attorney and his
associates know nothing of what points
the water company will advance in the
trials of the actions which are almost
certain to be filed before the matter is
finally decided. City Attorney Dunn
stated yesterday that while the action
might not affect the ultimate result of
the effort to secure municipal control of
the water works, yet it placed his de-
partment in peculiar attitude with ref
erence to the matter.
In brief the counsel for the city are
of the opinion, first, that the water COM
pany has not the exclusive rights to
geles second. that the city may de-
charged, and third, that 1t Is obliga tory
upon the city to arbitrate the matter of
the purchase of the company's plant and
property and that the city must pay for
this in whatever amount may be decided
upon as result Of this arbitration.
The question came up at the morning
session of the council, when City Attor-
|ney Dunn submitted the following re-
port:
To the Honorable Council of the City of
Los Angeles:
Gentlemen-1. In the matter of your
request for my opinion on the validity Of
the contract of July 20, 1868. between
Griffin. ct al. predecessors Of the City
Water Company and the City of Los An
geles, make the following report:
first submitted the question to Messrs.
Lee and Scott, special counsel as it
comes within the scope Of their employ
ment by the city. They took the matter
up with me and after careful examina-
tion Of the law involved and a full con-
sideration Of existing conditions, the re-
port was prepared in the form of a.letter
from Messrs. Lee and Scott to myself.
The advice given herein fully concur
in. The letter is as follows:
LOS ANGELES. CAL, Sept. 1s, 1897
w. E. Dunn ESQ.,. City Attorney:
Dear Sir-We are in receipt Of your
communication referring to the late
resolution of the City Coucil, which asks
for your opinion upon the validity of the
contract claimed by the Los Angeles
City Water Company to have been made
between the city and Griffin ct al, pre-
decessors in interest of the water COM
pany, and we note your request for our
opinion on the same. subject.
1t is difficult and complicated ques-
ton, presenting for consideration many
differing phases, both of law and fact.
For several years after its date, the
validity Of the contract was apparently
not questioned. In 1878 a suit was
brought by the. City Water Company
against the city to recover compensation
for the water taken by the city for street
sprinkling purposes. The court below
held that the company was obliged to
furnishe water free because the statute
under which it was incorporated so pro-
ided, and expressly found the contract
valid; but the Supreme Court, assuming.
without discussing the question, the va
lidity Of the contract, affirmed the judg-
ment of the court below on the ground
| that under the contract, which has been
set up by the company itself in its COM
plant, the city was entitled. to all water
taken from the river and not used fol
domestic purposes, as the predecessors
Of the company (Griffin, Beaudry and
Lazard) were expressly prohibited from
taking any. water for irrigation (Which
term covered street sprinkling)
| We find two other cases In our Su.
preme Court prior to 1888, in which the
interpreta tation Of the contract was in.
volved, but in. which the question of Its
validity was not raised or passed upon
it being expressly stated in one of their
| decided in 1882 that the validity Of the
contract was not challenged by either
party.
Since then It does not seem to have
been before our Supreme Court.
In $780, in the suit Of the water COM
pany against Stern, tried in our Su.
perior Court, two Of the distinguished
counsel who now represent the water
company, appeared for the defendanta
| and maintained that the contract waa
| invalid on certain grounds and to GER
tain extent, and the learned Judge sus-
tanned them in their views; while few
! weeks ago lin the suit now pending II