Arizona republican., 1903-04-03
MASS MEETING
 FOR CITY WATER
Walter Bennett Discusses the
 WaIIa WaIla Case
Captain Alexander on the History of the Nun cipal Movement in Phoe- nix-Cha rman I'd ms Appeal 10 Voters.

or the committee of 1C0 to a discussion of the question of tke propriety oi r,u- nicipal ownership Of water works and | the issuance of bonds to the amount of | $3G0, GOO for that purpose to be voted | on April l5. h tEe call for the meet | ing representatives of the Phoenix Wa ter company had been especially invit- ed to appear and present any reasons they might have why the bonds should | not be voted.
 | Before the orga niZa tior of the meet l irg Chairman Adams c: the commit 1 tee renewed the invitation to friends of the company and there being no ac- ceptaEce Mr. Adams moved the electicl of H. H. McNeil, chairman of the meet i ing C. NJ. Sturgis was chosen secre- tary.
 | It had been extensively advertised l that the meeting would be addressed | by Walter Bennett on a legal aspect of the case. A Phoenix newspaper had Ia tely published and friends of the com pany had given further publicity to the so-called Walla Walla case in which the city of Walla Walla had been en- l joined from establishing municipal water works during the life of a fran chise which had been granted to a pri- vate corporation which had suei out | the injunction. It was held that the l city might have issued q franchise to 1 ancthor Corporation but that it could not engage in the water works business itself to the dotriTne1t of the holder Of 1 the franchise. It had been contendeCt | that the Cit.- of Phoenix finds itself at this time in the same situation in which the city of Walla Walla had been put by the decision of the supreme court nf the United States.
 MT. Bennett howed that there is vast difference: that the franchise in the Walla Waua case was quite differ ent from the Gardiner franchise under which the Phoenix Water company is operating. In the WalLa Walla fran chisr the city council had expressly covenanted that the city should not establish competing plant. It might at any time during the lie of the franchise acquire the existing plant by purchase. appraiseme1t or condemna- ton but it could not establish new plant. Tn the Phoenix franchise, MT. Bennett said there was no such con- tract. even by implication.
 The Walla Walla case, he said had been thrashed over in the courts of the country and had at least twice been re- ferreG to in cases which had been talk en to the United States supreme court. It had been held in those cases that the Wdlld Walla decision had no bear ing upon them for the reason that the franchises under which the applying companies for injuncticns against the municipalities were working cid not contain the clause upon which the in junction against Walla Walla had been granted. He cited half fe3zen other cases in which the right of cities to engage in the W. ter works business had been sus- ; taineh in spite of franchises similar to that of the Gardiner franchise. Tha one nearest in point was the case of q private corporation against the city of Mobile. Ala, where the franchise was almost exactly the sarrc as the Phoenix franchise.
 The latest decision tC which MT Ber- nett referred was one by the United States court of appeals in the ease ol the Helena Water company against the | city of Helena reversing the decisions of all the lower courts against the city and holding that it had the right tc , build it's own water works rotwith- standing it ha3 :-rl1tr- such q fran chise as that under v-l.c', the Phoenix company is working.
 MT. Bennett said lie would pass upon any question of fact and he would no' discuss tho adVisa bility of the building of municipal water works but he would , say that there could be no doubt ot the absolute legal right of the city tt build such works.
 At the re lue5t of MT. Adams Captain : J. l.. B. Alexander addressed the meet ing. giving a history of the work of tho committee and of the legislation enact ed by the late legislature iavcring the city and protecting it against a possi-
 hle extension of the water company's franchise. He had. he sald, become ir- tcrested in the question of municipa
 ownership by the aatenpts of the com parry to secure an extension of tho franc hice ard he had ascertaned bs careful investigation that municipa
 works would be the best thing for the city. He presented a long array oi figures relating to the cost of the sys- tenn it's receipts based upon thO5e ol the present water company. showing
 that there would be constant lower ing of the rate Of taxation with the growth 0i the city and q lowering at the same time If the water rates. He next appealed to the voters of al }classcs He described the Questionab bic methods Of the water company in the Influencing of public opinion and Int closed with a bit of advice to those whr might be inGuCcd to accept money "Take the dollar" said he. and whar you get into the privacy of the election
 booth with no eye but C;cd's upon you and then vote fer the water works bends with clear conscience.
 The next speaker was w. n. Bell ot ! the Enterprise. who handled the quc=-
 tion as he said from a political stand paint and he especially urged upor Democrats the business of voting fol
 municipal ownership because tho party in it's conventions had constantly
 pledged itc candidates to that policy
 Mr. Adams read q telegram from ths city engineer of Tucson in reply to one
 oi inquiry regarding the working oi the municipal system there. The ex-
 pcnse for fuel was annually $32uO. the receipts, S26.100. the interest on ths
 bonGs, S5.450 and the total cost Ter G0t galloNs nf water five and one-hal! cents. The telegram closed as follows.