Union gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Benton County, Or.) 1899-1900, 1900-02-23
CONTRACT COMPLETED.
The Franchise of the Corvallis Water
Company Expired Tuesday.

The Franchise of the Corvallis Water
Company Expired Tuesday.
The city of Corvallis is no longer under
contract to take water from the Corvallis
Water Company, and the Corvallis
Water Company is fancy free SO lar as
| it's obligations to the city of Corvallis
are concerned The agreement entered
into by and between M. Jacobs, mayor
and E. H. Taylor, recorder, as repre-
senatives OF the city, and G. 4. Farra,
president, and W. B. Chase, secretary,
as representatives of the water company,
February 20. 1856, to be inferced for the
period of fifteen years, expired Tuesday.
This was the first franchise ever en-
tered into by the city with a company
for the supplying of water. In May,
1881, however, Mayor Carlile and Re-
corder J. r. Bryson acting for the city,
authorized William NJ. Pittman to erect
water works withia the city limits and
lay water pipes through its streets:
Previous to this Mr.. Pittman had laid
some pipe through the city with the
common consent of the council, but was
not authorized to do so by written ordi-
nance. This authorization protected
both Mr.. Pittman and the city, it being
provided however, that nothing In this
ordinance should be construed as to
grant any exclusive right or privilege for
conducting water into the city.
Mr.. Pittman cons tructed his plant
upon property at the waters edge of the
Willamette river at the termination of
Madison street. Four years later when
the present water company made its
contract with the city, it secured the
property of Mr.. Pittma and enlarged
and improved the plant, remaining at
this location until 1888. when it erected
the present tower at the termination OF
Adams street. March II, 1885, an ordi-
nance to lease to the water company that
part of Madison street lying between the
east side of First street and the waters
edge of the Willamette river. for
menthly rental of fifty cents, was passed.
The company being given the privilege
of putting said premises and being re-
leased from such rental fee, upon giving
three months notice.
Owing 10 the ambiguity and lax word
ing of the contract many disputes have
arisen between the parties concerned,
leading in some instances almost to
open rupture. An ordinance passed by
the council December II, 1892, accepting
the proposition of the water company to
sell its plant to the city for the sum of
$4,000, was returned to that body by
Mayor Burnett, December %, without
his approval, but vas subsequently
passed over his veto. There upon an
injunction suit restraining the city from
making such purchase was begun and
the matter remained in the courts until
Judge Hamilton decided the case in the
city's favor at the November term of
court last year
Although the ordinance passed by the
council ordering the purchase of the
plant was in accordance with provision
of the original charter Of the city, which
stated that "whenever the common
council shall contemplate the erection
or purchase of water works, and the
issuing of the bonds of the city to pay
therefore, it shall, before issuing any of
such bonds cause to be submitted to the
voters of said city at a special election
by the council for that purpose,
to be held under the same notice and in
the same manner as other elections are
held under this act, the question wlieth-
er or not such bonds shall be issued,'' in
so far as the holding of the election was
concerned, Judge Hamilton found that
the election netice did not follow the
and declared the action of
the council was without authority of law
and, therefore, void.
In 1895 the legislature repealed that
portion of the charter permitting the
city to issue bonds for the purchase of
water works, and subsequently all ordi-
nances bearing on the subject were re-
pealed. The suit of the water company
against the city to compel performance
Of contract followed, and 1t has been
pending in the court for nearly four years.
The act of the legislature virtually pre-
vented the city from carrying out its
contract, had it beea legal in other
and thus the matter stands.
At present the relations between the
water company and city appear..to be quite
amiable and no interest in the expiration
If the contract seems to be taken by I
either citizens or councilmen.