The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-08-12
per annum. the parties themselves called it


a rent"
I'VE find, too, that within two months
after the contract was entered into, the
company made a formal protest against
another water company's being granted
the privilege Of operating in the city; the
ground for that protest was that the water
plant and property belonged TO the city
and not TO the company. At that time
they were not studying how to violate the
obligations of the contract or how to hold
onto that to which they hal no right
They felt satisfied with the prospect OF
thirty years possession. At another time
In a suit for taxes, the company absolute
ly denied that they were the owners of
the property, setting themselves forth as
mere agents of the city. TIL, compan:
was in a peculiar position in this contract
They did have an interest In the property.
The city must pay them for all improve
ments, and in this instance Improvements
means everything, for there is not u rar-
ticle of the original water works in ex-
istence. But that is naturu! conse-
quence.
That Tax Question
1.-The company is undoubtedly entitled to
full and entire pay for these improve
ments, and they are naturally to De taxed
for the property, not only from July ]
to July q of this yea, but from about
March l, when the assessment was made.
If a man holds mortSaged property, even
though the property passes out or his
possession on July |, and he becomes re-
sponsible for the taxes on June go he must
pay the full years tax. If the company
was not satisfied with the assessment, it
was competent for them to appear before
the board of equalization and demand their
rights; not getting them there, they could
appeal to the courts.
THE contract provides thar the COM
pany shall not use water for irrigation
purposes, and in suit some years ago to
compel the city to pay for water used
in sprinkling the streets, The courts held
that the company had no righ: to sell
water for such purpose and that the
city had perfect right to take water from
the companys pipes wherever it was
found"
Right of Possession
1.-THE contract provides that the COM
pany shall be paid for all improvements at
the expiration of contract and the prop
erty shall be turned over to the city. What
does this mean? Why, at The last mo-
meut and that is the time at which the
city was entitled to possession. Suppos
ing the property had all been destroyed on
July q. Who would have been the loser?
Why, the city OF Los Angeles.
I'm the contract of 1868 there is a clause
that says the company shall have the use
loo pitN lup nd " To
works improvements. Only the use if it,
as in the instance of Bellevue reservoir.
1t was originally contemplated that the
works and its additions should all be built
on city lands. but the growth of the city
has forced the purchase of locations from
private parties. and in making these pur-
chases the company merely acted as agent
for the city and such property is held by
them in trust. The city might have to re-
sort to a suit in court to secure the prop
erty, but it would be entitled to 1t just
the same. When the company built any Of
the works on city land 1t acknowledged
that only easement was expected.
In two cases in the supreme court the
city has been decided to have a superior
right in the waters of the Los Angeles
river, that it can control not only the
water inside but also outside of the city by
right of Mexican grants. Counsers posi-
ton Is a peculiar one. They claim they
can go on using the water of the river with
out having paid for 1t. Such proposition.
do not think requires or merits much
answer 1t is claimed in behalf of the
company that the addition of a hydrant
would have prevented the city from resum-
ing possession of the property. The com
pany is not vested with a right of posses
sion after the contract has expired any
more by 300 miles of new pipe than had
there only been one mile added. The
Sansevain contract in force previous to the
contract with Griffith, Beaudry and Lag
ard, provided for absolute delivery with
out compensation for the Improvements;
but the contract of 1868 did not have such
a provision because the parties to 1t would
not agree to such condition. 1t was not
a condition precedent. however. to the
delivery of the plant when the contract ex-
pired.
"a valid contract cannot be impaired by
subsequent legislation, and because an act
of the legislature has since declared that
city must not incur Indebtedness beyond
one years revenues, the city Is not released
from its obligations under contract If
nv caprice or otherwis,. the voters should
fai; or refuse to vote bonds, the company
can enter the cc.-rts and by force of man.
damus require tho city to pay. The city
OF Los Angeles cannot violate a contract
any more than an individual. and is re-
sponsible until the statute of limitations
becomes bar.
"Without q lien. the company cannot
hold possession OF the property and there
certainly is no lien. There is ever nothing
which gives the company right to use
the streets since the expiration of the con
tract.
I'm the very next month after the con-
tract was made a corporation wac formed
for the purpose of carrying GU. the con-
tract. and the life Of that corporation was
to be thirty years. This is a significant
fact as to the intention of the company
with referenc. to retaining possession.
The contract states that the Improvements
to be paid for by the city were those made
during the thirty years. 1t is therefore
evident that the city was to assume the
responsibility of management and control
Immediately on the expiration Of the con-
tract. The ordinance authorizing the ex-
ecution of the contract on behalf of the
city is entitled AN ordinance providing for
the care and maintenance of the city water
works.; the rental was to be paid for thirty
years only: the company was given the
right to collect rates for thirty years only.
In short all rights which were not imme-
diately necessary to the operation of the