The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-01-04

shall be respected by the water company.
There Is one thing certain-look back over
the year: II the city does not assume an
aggressive policy the water controversy
Will continue indefinitely In the event that
the city should, after having done every
thing In Its power, fail to bring about a
settlement. there is one course to pursue
that cannot be evaded by the water COM
pany. That course Is: At the expiration OF
the thirty-year contract the ethyl It's inter-
ests are to be protected, to take possession
OF the entire plant of the water company
reservoirs, pipes, in short, everything that
goes to form the system. No one should
FOR moment question the city's right to
this course There Is not word in the
contract which says that the plant is not
to come into the possession of the city at
the expiration of the thirty-year contract:
but the contract does say that the water
company will make all improvements as
mentioned and set forth in the contract and
keep the same In repair at its own cost and
expense for the period of thirty years
and return the said water works to the said
party Of the first part at the expiration of
the said period of thirty years In good order
and condition, reasonable wear and dam
age by the elements excepted. The city Of
Los Angeles not being insolvent, the water
company could In due time recover all 1t is
entitled to for improvements under the
contract. I consider the water company
acting simply in the capacity of trustee,
and that acting as such the said company
has absolutely nothing to say about ope-
rating the plant after the expiration of
the contract. By the terms of the con-
tract the plant reverts to the city. All the
water company has Is a claim on the city
for the real value of the improvements
made to the plant during the life OF the
contract. There is no doubt that nearly
thirty years ago. when the Mayor and
Common Council of the city of Los Angeles
entered into contract with the water COM
pany, 1t was never intended (and IL 1t had
been so intended 1t would have been ex-
pressly provided in the contract) that the
water company should at the expiration of
the contract have any rights in the prem
ises except to the real value of the i'm
provements. 1t should be remembered
that every day the water company retains
possession Of the plant after the expiration
Of the contract, the revenues go to the
water company instead Of to the city. The
net earnings amount to large sum month
ly, and 1t should be seen to that this money
goes into the city treasury, not into the
hands Of the water company. trust that
1t will not be necessary to resort to harsh
measures to bring about a settlement, Sc
curing to the city its just rights. There is
no occasion for any unpleasantness, pro-
viding all parties concerned are disposed to
act fairly. If we will show the water COM
pany that we mean business, the next step
will be easy. We must take hold of the
situation with firm hand. Either the
city or the water company Is to rule. We
cannot afford to fall down on our knees
and play second fiddle to corporation
which has made millions of dollars out Of a
privilege granted by the city nearly thirty
years ago. II the city doesn't demand its
rights the rock of ages will crumble away
before we are any nearer municipal own
ership of water works than today. These
are the facts as I see them. and believe
they are the facts as every unprejudiced
mind sees them.
IN CONCLUSION
1t is my earnest desire, and 1t shall be my
constant aim that during my term in office
the most friendly relations shall exist be-