The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-06-21

against him. The company can not sell
this water to the people of Wilkes
Barre. 1t belongs to the people of this
locality. The people, through the leg
islature, said to the company, "You
can deprive us of this water in the
| streams that is owned by natural
right, providing you will deliver it to
| our homes"
| ACCEPTS THE OFFDR.
| The company accepts this offer and
| takes the water out of the reach of its
owners. promising to deliver 1t to them
| conveniently. That is the limit and
| extent of the contract The matter Of
compensation to the company for this
service is yet to be arranged. The
| company can not say to the people.
"You can not have this water" 1t must
| supply the water. and If the consumer
fails to pay for 1t, it must do as every
| other person must do, go into court
| and sue for its claim.
Judges Edwards and Kelly both in
| terrogated Mr.. Burns at length as to
what would be done in case a con-
| sumer was insolvent. or If he refused
each quarter to make payment. MIR.
J Burns answers were in substance that
| the company would have no recourse
| except to keep on suing. The COM
| pany. he said. takes this risk. and IL
| there Is an inadeuuaCy in the law, it is
| the company's misfortune.
Congressman NJ. f.. Olmstead, of
| Harrisburg. who is associated with
| Major Everett Warren, for the defense,
made the arguments against the bill.
He held that the contention made by
li,, I., ,lN ,,r
| an expressed right in the company's
charter To hX water rates could be
applied with equal force to the city's
| charter. He also. at length, assailed
| the attempt of councils to fix the rate.
| as a violation of the right Of contract,
| an attempt to deprive the company of
property without due process of law,
and an effort to take from the COM
pany the management and control of a
business which the Legislature gave
| specifically to the company.
WERE! IN DOUBT.
| 1t might be gathered from some of
| the questions, the judges propounded
| to Mr.. Burns. that they are very much
| in doubt as to the cty's right to fix
| the water rates, and that the proper
| course for Il consumer to pursue, IL
| aggrieved at the charges. is to come
| into court. under the Act of 1874, and
| have the court fix the rate. in his par
ticular case.
Mr.. Olmstead and Major Warren
contend that this was the proper
method, but Mr.. Omstead warily re-
| marked to the court that it was not
| likely tn court would bring itself to
reduce the rates charged by a COM
| pany which has been paying only two
per cent. a year to its stockholders.
City Solicitor George Nj. Watson was
present at the arguments. but took no
| part. President W. w. Scranton. of
| the defendant company, was also an
| interested listener.
| Other cases We're dealt with az
| follows:
| Argued Commonwealth against ]. W. Gncln.
| scy ct al, demurrer TO indictment; common.
| wealth against Anthony Ruddy. ulc TO remit
| forfeiture; commonwealth agairst Frank Comp,
ton. rule for new trial; commonwealth against
| AicS Cook. rule To strike off forfeiture
| Coninurd-C Commonwealth against Andrew
| Synonab, rule to remit forfeiture; in seizure
rf slming devices from John Hall, rule to de.
| stroy devices.
| Suhmircd-C Commonwealth against Wade NJ.
| Finn, lula to qua,h indictment.
| All the orphans court cases except
! those of the Sweeney and Colby es-
| tates, We're submitted.
When the court rose from its sitting
at 6 o'clock. il had disposed of %
common pleas cases, 40 quarter ses-
sions cases and 10 orphans. court
| cases. all in four days. 1t was the
| biggest and one of the most important
sessions of argument court the county
has ever seen.
Court adjourned until Saturday
morning at . o'clock.