The herald., 1898-07-12
LEASE OR PURCHASER

LEASE OR PURCHASER
At the session of the council yesterday
the attorney Of Kessler & Co. submitted
proposition to heal all differences and
complications between the city and the
water company by purchasing the In
terests Of the latter and taking lease Of
the water privileges for term OF fifty
years. If satisfactory arrangements can
be made with the city, Kessler & Co. pro-
pose to dismiss the pending suit relative
to Crystal Springs, confirming title
of the water right in the city; further
they agree not to advance rates be-
yond what they are at present. to furnish
free Of charge all water required for
municipal purposes. and to pay the city
a royalty on gross receipts amounting to
2h per cent for the first five years, per
cent for the second five years and per
cent for the balance of the term. The
firm also offer to bind themselves to ex-
pend, during the first year Of the con-
tract, not less than 100000 In improving
the plant and such sums thereafter as
may be necessary to keep it up to good
working efficiency and provide pure
and adequate supply of water.
If the city were looking for an oppor-
tunity to lease its water rights, the offer
of Kessler & Co. seems fair enough, and,
in any event it should have careful con-
sideration.
But do we want to give up the idea Of
municipal ownership? There's the rub.
We have long treasured the hope of hav-
ing the water system under municipal
control, with the idea Of increasing its
efficiency and perhaps Of lessening rates
to consumers. Shall we cast these ex-
pectations all aside just at the time when
we begin to look for their realization?
Certainly not, unless it can be proven of
immense advantage to the city to make
change In plans.
AS we understand It, the water company
has expressed a willingness to enter into
an arbitration under the terms of its con-
tract with the city, to determine the value
Of it's plant, and when such valuation shall
have been determined the city is obliged
to purchase the works. Certain difficulties
have been suggested in carrying out this
program which may or may not be
vital. For example, it is held that, after
arbitration, the city could not pay the de-
termined price without an issue of bonds.
and the bonds could not be issued without
being first voted by the requisite majority
of citizens. What If the citizens should
not sanction the price determined by the
board of arbitration and should refuse to
vote the bonds? Is there then any power
to compel the municipality to live up to
the terms Of the contract? What court
would attempt to mandamus an entire
community and make 1t vote yes when 1t
willed to vote no?
This argument, while It has some force,
is good deal like trying to cross bridge
before we come to it. The reasonable as
sumption is that a fair board of arbitra-
ton land no other should be chosen)
would place just valuation on the water
plant, and fair minded people would do
the rest
Unless some weightier argument than
this can be offered The Herald would say,
let US 60 ahead with the arbitration.
If there are more weighty arguments
if, as result of attempting to effect the
purchase we are to be involved in expen-
sive and endless litigation. during which
the water works are to be figuratively
hung up without determined owner
ship or chance of improvement-why that
is another story. On. this, point the city
government and its legal advisers are the
best judges. 1t devolves upon them to
consider the matter in its broadest sense,
and we have confidence enough in them
to believe that they will act for the best
interests Of the city. But they are not
warranted in setting aside the plan of ar
bitration and purchase unless they can
show some insurmountable obstacle in
the way, or can prove conclusively that
a lease to private corporation is in the
best interest of the city of Los Angeles.
~