The San Francisco call., 1898-01-20

to the company and the Mayor would be powerless to prevent it.
 The present net income of the City Company is anywhere from S4o0,OoO to s5OO000 per annum. It i3 yearly in- creasing. The net income for fifty years would be- at moderate calcu- lation. $20 COG, ,000. The s1,000,o0o bonus for such a franchise is nothing.
 The water company's organs will deny that any such scheme as this Is contemplated or thought of. Never theless, the plan has been so far ar ranged that a syndicate has been fosm- ed to take the plant after the fifty year franchise has been secured and to give s4 0OO. 900 for it. Options have been se cured on water company's stock with this idea in view, and if the deal were ever put through the parties who per fected 1t would net one million dollars.
 Now that the people are to be thor oughly posted on every move and de- tail of this fight through The Call. the consummation of this gigantic fraud upon the people can never be carried out. The people are already aroused, but with the news of this proposition to deliver them over to the water com pany for fifty years to come before them they will never for a moment re- lax their vigilance until the water negotiations are completed.
 There are fifty-three stockholders of the Los Angeles City Water Company and there are 10000 people in Los An geles. The syndicated press-the Times, Herald and Express-devoted columns to weak and puerile explana- tions as to why they have gone over to the protection of the interests of those fifty-two stockholders to the ex- tent of robbing 10000 citizens of mill lions. Neither of these papers has the audacity to cOntrOvert the facts set out in The Call. They all declare for municipal ownership now, but still call for delay, delay, delay, as they have for a year past. They also de- fend the Councilmen who have voted with the water company.
 Out of their own mouths are these three papers convicted The Herald once was owned and controlled by par ties other than those who have it now and it was not then a water company organ. On January II of last year the City Council, by a vote of to 4, Her man Silver casting the deciding vote, refused to direct the City Engineer to furnish an estimate of the cost of an entirely new water plant. This was the first vote taken in the present Council which indicated that the water com pany had it.
 The result of that vote aroused the people and on January F, 1897, the Herald commenting on it editorially, said:
 The basest feature of the human heart fc 1al gr-+o raIo fl,a dominating factor when one betrays the confidence of his friend and neighbor and delivers him over into the hands Of a sworn enemy. Los Angeles nor any other city ever experienced such a bold exhibition of perfidy, hypocrisy and falsehood as was seen in the City Coun- cil yesterday when five of the nine mem bers with relish foreswore themselves and tried to deliver Los Angeles over to the water company to be squeezed. taxed and swindled to the utmost of the com pany's desire.
 Later, under extreme pressure, the Council did just exactly what was asked of it on January Il, but the Herald had changed hands, passed un- der the domination of the water com pany. It then entered on a policy of conforming every step suggested which tended to clear the way for the city to acquire the water plant, and its policy of delay was inaugurated and has ever since been consistently kept up. As illustrative of this fact the Herald editorially says:
 A report gained currency yesterday that the City Council is to make arbitra- ton an immediate issue in the contro- versy with the water company. It might be supposed that the Council had made a sufficiently silly exhibition of its prematureness when it insisted upon making public the opinion of the City Attorney and his associate counsel as to the validity of the contract with the water company.
 The Herald was utterly opposed then, and is now, to the people know ing anything about the status of their case. The people well know that the water company was posted as to the validity of the contract, but the Herald was unwilling the people should know how it's legal advisers regarded the matter. This outlined its policy in keeping the facts away from the peo- pie. The Evening Express, on the same lines, editorially said on Septem- Der q:
 The calm, long-range judgment of the majority of the people of this city will be that a mistake was undoubtedly made in making public the opinion of the City Attorney and consulting counsel as to the validity of the city's contract with the Los Angeles Water Company.
 Then the Herald became alarmed, on the 18th of November, lest something should be done whereby municipal ownership would be furthered, so ii printed a labored editorial defending the policy of the seven subservient Councilmen. in which it said:
 It Is to be regretted that there is ar apparent disposition in some quarters to bring the water question to an acute crisis.
 It then goes on and endeavors to show why it should not be done The Express has lined up with the Herald and the Times has, since last July led the van in making the water com panys fight.
 In an editorial printed to-day, the Times says it has always claimed that municipal ownership was certain to be brought about. But on the 2Sth day of last November it did not think so for it editorially said then: ''Municipa ownership of the water supply system is possibility of the future" and then in column of space, gave its reason. for indorsing the policy of delay, ant argued that not until after July 20, 1898 could anything be done.
 The exposures made by The Call hay, forced the syndicated dailies to defend