The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-08-11
ROYAL BAKING POWDER CO., NEW YORK.

ROYAL BAKING POWDER CO., NEW YORK.
ending July /, 1899, the same valuation is
placed on the assessment rolls Nearly
81 900 900 for pipe lines and franchises and
yet they tell US we have no franchises or
property. Year after year since the con-
| tract began these valuations have been
steadily increased. growing much heavie r
as the time for the contract to expire grew
near. Do they then mean to tell Us that
all our property rights ended with the ex-
piration of this contract? II, on July l, 1898.
we were to have these properties and fran
chises only % days longer. why did they
value the possession a nearly 81 zoo, 900, and
charge us with taxes until July /, 1899?
THE city alleged that the company
charged an exorbitant and enormous rate
for the rent of Crystal Springs, when it was
proposed to lease it for the city's use, and
500 600 per year was asked. And then coun-
sci turns around and states that the net In
come of the company is $3.50 900 per year. II
such be the fact, is 100000 per year an
enormous or exorbitant rental for the larg-
er part of the property?
The City's Prayer
Now to the city's case: 1t is obvious
that the injunction sought is not an injunc-
ton in the ordinary sense of the word, but
would be in the form of mandatory in1unc-
ton compelling us to give up the property.
A mandatory injunction can be issued 10
keep party in possession of a property, bu.
not to GUST one from 1t. In our case we are
seeking a restraining order for the purpose
of retaining possession of property we have
had for thirty years, and claim that the
court cannot issue an injunction to Gust NE.
ION the question Of the appointment Of a
receiver for the plant, one would suppose
that the supreme court of the state has
| passed on cases where such action was
asked often enough to satisfy any one. 1t
has time and time again been held that a
receiver cannot be appointed for cor
poration's business unless extraordinary
reasons are found to prevail. The city al
| leges as a reason for asking such an action
by the court that the Los Angeles City
| Water company will soon cease to exist. 1t
strikes us that this is a violation of the
code of etiquette. 1t is customary not to
p,under a man till he's dead, but in this
action they propose to plumber us because
we are going to die. If the prospective
death of a corporation is the occasion for
the appointment of a receiver, the law pro-
| vides who the receiver shall be- and the
| court cannot take the corporation out of
the hands of its board of directors without
| dissolving the corporation itself. Besides
the papers in these cases themselves show
ample reason for not appointing receiver
They show that the Los Angeles City Wa
| ter companys system is the only means of
the city's securing a water supply and cir
| cumstancea all make evident that a COM
pany's business is never conducted as we'll
or as cheaply by a receiver as by the COM
pany itself. The city does not claim the
company to be insolvent
Los Angeles River
Another allegation of the city claims alb
solute ownership of the water in the Los
Angeles river and that council in 1896 mott
fled the company that the permic',o use
this water waN Withdrawn. The original
contract granted the right to ten inches
of water and it was not for some years
after that the law was passed defining an
incH OF water as meaning an inch fiow>un-
der four inch pressure. Ten such inches
| as defined by this law would not have been
enough to supply the city as 1t was at that
time, let alone the immense increase re-
CURED by the great growth and extensions
1
understood that the ten inches granted was
| such an amount as the law now defines.
The city has suffered the company to use
| 400 or 500 inches for years and years. and
Judge Wellborn has decided that If the
| city once gave consent to The company TO
us more than ten inches of water, that
| consent cannot be withdraw during the
life of the contract. The question then re-
| al int hot c -
contract% Certain it is that contract Goes
not end in thirty years unless the company
10 paid for its property. The city has never
| paid for it nor contributed one penny to-
ward its upbuilding."
In closing. Judge Chapman made the
claim that the company's franchise right
to collect their water rentals follows with
| the continuance of the contract
| City's Argument Begun
Attorney Scott of the city's counsel
opened their side of the case with the intro
ducton of an affidavit from City Attorney
w. E. Dunn. This affidavit was to the eff
feet that all through the archives of the
| city council the contract Is referred to as
a lease, and as such is mentioned almost
| numberless times. 1t also stated that years
| ago an ordinance granting another water
| company the privilege of operating in the
| city was vetoed by the mayor on the ground
| that 1t was blow alta, public institution
and in 1871 the Los Angeles City Water
| company made oath that the property was
| owned by the city anc therefore the COM
pany should not pay taxes on it. The affi-
davit mentioned a long seriesIof such cir
| cumstances as supporting the city's theory
| that the contract is lease.
I'm regard to the Crystal Springs COM
panys case" said Mr.. Scott, at is merely
suit to enjoin us against trespass. The
| laws of this state with reference to IN
| courts"
| Here the court asked MIR. Scott regarding
| the concessions announced IN the morning
by which the company would be permitted
| to have an injunction SO far as the Crysfd.
Springs property wal. concerned excepting
| the water and certain pipe line Attorney
| Scott replied that they had reconsidered
| tn matter and decided not to concede the
point.
wv contend" resumed counsel, that
where a party's constitutional right Is
being interfered with the courts shall in
| tervene with restraining order. The city
| is not insolvent, because its annual re-
ceipts do not apparently provide for dam
ages or for the purchase of the plant
| Whatever the city does, 1t is able to pay
| any damages resulting, therefore such
damages. should they result from taking
possession of the plant, are not irreparable