The San Francisco call., 1898-01-19


 fair and equitable price.
 MT. Dunn adds that, in company W4th Messrs Lee and Scott, he had TOT some months been procuring and brleHnS au- thorities which support ms conleholoil, and that he had found them ana Iully satisfied himself and his associates that 1t was a proper move for the clty 10 make on the 22d day of next July.
 When The Call of Monday reached here this morning and as soon as IL De- came circulated among the people, the greatest interest was manifested In the papers expose of the condition or the water fight Citizens gathered in knots about the streets and talked the matter over. In the clubs and in the public offices at the City Hall and the Court house 1t was the sole topic Of discus sion. The fact that most impressed eY- erybody was the idea that the people of Los Angeles were compelled to go to San Francisco to find a daily newspa- per that would protect them from cold blooded, clean-cut, deliberately planned scheme that was being put up and gradually being carried to sue cessful consummation to mulct them in the sum of almost $2,000,000, if mu- nicipal ownership was obtained, or to defeat the proposition altogether. The Times, Herald and Express were round ly denounced on all sides. and the po- sitiOn taken by The Call was every where the subject of favorable com- ment
 The men in both private and public life, who have either openly or covert ly aided in the carrying out of the wa ter company's skillfully arranged plans were dismayed. In the past they have been secure, and have imagined that they were protected from censure for betraying the peoples interest. They have known that the syndicated three daily papers would never hold them up to public scorn for any official act they might be guilty of which would strengthen the clutch of the water co-m- pany upon the people of this city. They knew that no citizen would be given access to the Times, Herald or Express for the purpose of exposing their betrayal of their trust.
 Therefore when The Call came into the field with presentation of the peoples side of this vital contest it caused an awakening among those who knew their own guilt. They went about and when asked what they thought of the matter as presented by The Call they shook their heads. They made no attempt to deny the facts as pre- scented. for they could not. The facts were absolutely unassailable in point of truth or logic. So these persons simply dismissed the subject as best they could and proceeded to private of fees, where they conferred among themselves.
 A representative of The Call called upon s. H. Mott, the secretary of the Los Angeles City Water Company. to- day and requested a statement from him as the representative of the cor pOration. MT. Mott was informed that the paper desired to give the companys side of the case fairly. and would do so over his signature as sec retary He said that he had no au- thoritY to give any statement and the matter was one in which he could not act without the consent of the board of directors and under its instruction.
 Herman Silver, the president of the City Council, was seen. MT. Silver was not desirous of making any statement. but he did give to The Call the follow ing signed communications:
 My views on the water question have time and again been made public through my utterances on the floor of the Council chamber and by my official acts and votes as Councilman. By them l am willing to be judged.
 platform favoring municipal ownership of the water plant. All of my acts in an official and private capacity have been aimed and directed to bring about that result upon a basis of equity and justice
 HERMAN SILVER.
 Further than this statement MT. Sil- yer declined to go, on the ground that
 
 troversy.
 William E. Dunn, City Attorney, was interviewed MT. Dunn wished it to be distinctly understood that in the battle that was now on he desired to be at all times recorded as being on the side of the people, whose interests he had sworn to faithfully represent and protect as the legal adviser of the mu- nicipality. Asked as to his opinion of the Mayors contention that on the 22d of July next the city could again take possession of its plant, the City Attor- ney said:
 'The Mayor, in announcing that fact in his annual message placed the water company in possession of information which may defeat the accomplishment of anything of the kind. Messrs. Lee and Scott and myself had fully deter mined upon advising that very course of procedure at the proper time. We have gone into the matter exhaustively and become convinced that 1t was legal, but not until next July should this have been given out. The water company can now go into the courts and claim that it is threatened with being forci- bly, dispossessed of its property and ask that the city be enjoined from taking the step.
 If the Mayor had not made the pub lication we could have quietly gone on the expiration of the lease and taken possession of the plant. Then the water company could have done the litigat- ing"
 MT. Dunn, you are perhaps aware that in certain quarters it has been all legged that you, as legal adviser of the city, have contributed your mite to procure for the company the much de- sired delay in bringing negotiations for the requirement of the plant by the city to a head?"
 No man can truthfully allege any, thing of the kind. Whatever I may have done in the past no one can as sert that I have done other than my duty as City Attorney, and more par ticularly does this apply to the water matter. I am a young man and upon my conduct of the water negotiations l am willing to stake my future. On the 24th of next month a suit will be tried in the Superior Court of tremen- dous importance to the city. It is to determine the ownership of the source of water supply of the Crystal Springs Land and Water Company We claim that the water comes from the river and that if belongs n the citv The