The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-08-11

signatures have any bearing. The court
must determine its effect from the instru-
ment itself Whatever is necessary to the
performance of a contract comes within
the contract itself, and a corporation has
no other rights in making or performing
/ or requiring the performance of a contract
than has an individual"
i In support Of these statements counsel
offered long list OF supreme court decis-
ions, and then resumed:
"If we examine the instrument. think we
will find it not lease. When the contract
was entered into the city had nothing but
water wheel and six miles of wooden pipe.
To be sure, it had right Of way, franchises.
ETC. The terms of the contract prove that
everything of a property nature was to
| be abandoned; the wooden pipe was taken
up; iron pipe substituted and the lines
were extended, until now there are over
1920 miles of them. The Los Angeles City
Water company has purchased two differ
ent system, together with all their rights of
way, franchises and property. and the COM
| rany now has land which was never with
i in the city limits and other land never
within the patented limits; some of it was
| never owned by the city. The water pipes.
many of them, lay in streets not within the
patented limits of the city. Some Of the
reservoir sites were bought and prepared
at an immense outlay of money long after
the contract was entered into. How can
the city of Los Angeles be the owner of
property thus acquired? How can such
property be leased? The relation of land
lord and tenant cannot be maintained in
such an instance. The only thing in the
contract that could have been leased is the
original ten inches of water which the city
had developed. Excepting this ten inches,
the water company has developed all the
water now in use and the company un-
doubtedly owns large property interest in
the water of the Los Angeles river.
| 1.-THE contract was more in the nature Of
grant or privilege for certain length OF
time and we do not think that the interpret
alton of our learned adversaries is right
in any particular. They think that there
is nothing in the contract which required
them to make any prepare ton for comply
ing with its provisions until after July 22d
They were to pay for the property, which
the contract says they may take, but did
not deem 1t necessary to raise the money in
advance. We claim they should have had
the money ready, and contend that if the
arbitrator were able to make an award
today, 1t would be weeks before counsel
would know whether the money could be
raised at all. Call the contract lease. and
a lease is such until the payment for the
property is made
| Counsel here introduced opinion of the
courts in Kansas City's litigation with d
| water company relative to turning the
property over at the expiration of lease.
The courts ruled that the money must
pass to entitle the city to possession.
| I'm short" continued Judge Chapman,
''the money must be paid in order to ter
inmate the grant, lease. or whatever it is
1t would be absurd to say that the city
has the right to take possession of the
property otherwise.
City's Ability to Pay
"Since the contract of 1868 was entered
| into new constitution has been adopted
| by the state Of California, and one of its
provisions is that city cannot contract an
| Indebtedness in excess of one years reve-
nues, excepting by a holding of special
| election. a which two-thirds majority of
| The electors must vote in favor of the ex-
penditure to authorize it. 1t Is shown by
affidavit that the city cannot pay for the
rent receipts of the fiscal year. and on
July 22d there was not $4,000 in the city
treasury which could be used for such a
| purpose. The city's counsel meets this
emergency by prophecy as to the result
Iof an election to Issue bonds, alleging that
such a proposition would carry. No court
has right to make laws. and what
| we fear is that a court must compel a
1 i ~ 4.
| ton says it shall not do. If the court could
not do so, how could the Los Angeles City
| Water company compel the citizens to hold
an election, and how could the voters be
compelled to vote on the question? There
| fore, counsePs talk about the ci.y's integ-
rity and prosperity has nothing to do wit n
the issuance of an injunction 1t is doubt
| full if the company could ever recover from
| the city If possession of the property were
given.
IA court usually grants an injunction or
refuses it according to which party will be
most injured by the prevailing conditions
| If the injunction prayed for by the city
should be issued and the rents collected
| under the city's supervision, the company
| would have no remedy or medium of recov-
cry. The city, on the other hand, should the
questions at issue be ultimately decided
| against the company, will owe the COM
pany 81 900, 900, according to counseps own
| figures. Can there be any better security
for what rents the company may wrongful
| ~ collect? Whatever may be the wealth
| of the city or it's power to raise money, there
| is no court which has the right to order
| the property turned over until the money
is paid for 1t. The injury to the company
would be irreparabe.
| I'm the last affidavit introduced by the
city, which We question If it had a
right to introduce, is in support of calling
| the contract lease The contract is not
! a lease or any particular thing, and there
| is nothing to define its character or show
The Franchise Question
ut is denied by the city that the COM
pany has a franchise. l do rot know
| from just what source a franchise can be
said to emanate. 1t may come from the
city, and it may come from the laws, but
there are certainly franchises and rights
| Of way existing. We set forth in our afi-
| davit the assessment values placed on the
waterworks properties each year from the
time of the contract down to the present
In 1887 our pipe system was assessed at
$l5O.OOO and our franchises at s150, 900, and
for the fiscal wear beginning July 1. 1898. and