The San Francisco call., 1897-08-27
SUPERVISORS
and TIE COURT
Power Of Judge Wallace
Tested on a Writ of
Prohibition.
Strong Allegations That the
Superior Court Has No
Jurisdiction.
It Will Be Decided To-Day Whether
the Lawmakers Must Stand
Fire in the Courts.

The Supreme Court yesterday heard the
argument OF Attorneys Pilisbury and
CARRIER in the application of the Super
visors for a writ of prohibition against the
Superior Court, wherein the Supervisors
ask that Judge Wallace be enioined from
hearing The case of George K. Fitch for
their removal.
The court heard the argument for sew
eral hours, then went into consultation
until nearly o'clock. They reached a
conclusion, but decided that it would not
be in keeping with the dignity OF the
court to announce it until to-day.
The principal grounds on which the
Supervisors based their application we're
that they had not had time to fix the
water rates by the period prescribed by
law and that the Superior Court had no
jurisdiction anyhow.
Among the more material averments OF
the petition for the writ were the fol.
lowing:
That your petitioners did not, as such
February, 1897, fix the rates to be charged by
the corporation, the Spring Valley Water
Works, mentioned in said pretended COM
plant for the use Of water 10 be furnished and
supplied to the Inhabitants and property
holders OF SAID city and County of San Fran
cisco after July l, 1897, because your petit
tioners could not before the eud Of said month
OF February sufficiently investigate the ques-
tion and inform themselves thereon to be a ple
TO fix said rates intelligently and in manner
considered 10 be just and reasonable to said
corporation and SAID Inhabitants and property
holders, though your petitioners made every
possible effort so to do; and thereafter, and on
the ID day of June, A d. 1897, your petition
ers, being then first fully advised in the prem
justly, did fix said rates for the year COM
mencing July l, 1897, and in q manner by
them deemed to be air to all concerned.
That 1T was not necessary TO fix said rates
before said second day of June, 1897. because
the Board OF Supervisors next preceding that
composed OF your petitioners did, prior to July
corporation from July l, 1896, 10 July l, 1897,
and said rates were lawfully In force during
ali said year and were not subject to change
or repeal by your petitioners; and no property
holder, taXpayer householder, resident or IN
hebitant of and in said City and County of
San Francisco, nor any user or consumer cf
jured. aggrieved or prejudiced by the failure
OF your petitioners TO fix rates for id corpora
ton during the month OF February. 1897, or
interested in the fixing OF said rates before
said second day OF June, 1897.
That as petition ers are advised and believe,
and so aver, it is beyond the power and juris-
diction of said Superior Court and in viola
tion of the rights OF petitioners to require
them or either of them 10 answer unto or de-
fend said pre- tended complaint, suit or mat
ter and that the said Superior Court has no
jurisdiction to hear the same, or any evidence
in support thereof. or to require your petition
ers to answer there to or make any order in
the premises, except to dismiss the said CON-
plant
That your petitioners have no plain, speedy
or adequate remedy against the said threat
ened proceedings in the ordinary course of
law, nor way or means by which 10 protect
their rights in the premises unless this hon
orable court will prohibit the said Superior
Court and the ss id Hon. William T. Wallace,
Judge thereof. from further proceeding in the
said pre- ended suit or m after.
Wherefore, your petitioners pray that a writ
of prohibition issue herein, directed to the
Superior Court OF the City and County OF San
Francisco and 10 the Hon. William T. Wallace,
Judge thereof, commanding and directing the
said Superior Court and The said Judge to
desist and refrain fr ON further proceeding in
the said pretended suit or matter ns afore-
said numbered 80, ,555, ana to take no further
action upon said pretended complaint, except
to dismiss the same.
1t was said at late hour last night by a
legal authority close to the Supreme Court
that the decision of the court would prob
ably be to the effect that the Superior
Court has jurisdiction in the case, and
that the proceedings will be allowed to go
forward before Judge Wallace