The San Francisco call., 1903-01-22
PREPARES PAMPHLET.

PREPARES PAMPHLET.
That there may be no mistaking his po-
sition. Mr.. Works has given his views in
writing to the California Water and For
est Association and they will be circulat-
ed by means of pamphlet. The River
side meeting of objectors to the bill was
called at the instance of the Riverside
Water Company, the Anaheim Union Wa
ter Company, the Santa Ana Valley Irriga-
ton Company, the Orange Growers Bank
of Riverside, the First National Bank of
Riverside, the Riverside Land and Irri-
eating Company, the Gage Canal COM
pany of Riverside, the Chase Nursery
Company and the Temescal Water Com
pany of Corona.
mo invitation was extended to any
member of the commission by whom the
bill was prepared to be present" writes
Mr.. Works. 1T would naturally be sup
posed that the purpose was TO have the
bill discussed and considered on its mer-
its. But, as the sequel proved, this was
entirely misleading"
Specifying those who were at the meet
ing, Mr. Works names the following gen
tlemen of Southern California: A. A.
Caldwell, Senator from the Riverside dis
trict, who ''called the meeting TO order" ;
William A. Cornell, secretary of the Riv-
eTside Water Company: John G. North,
attorney for the Riverside Water Com
pany; S. Armer, director and officer of the
Anaheim Union Water Company; F. c.
Finkle, chief engineer of the Edison Wa
ter Company; Judge G. E. Otis, attorney
for the Arrowhead Reservoir Company; H.
Clay Kellogg, chief engineer of the Santa
Ana Valley Water Company; E. E.
Kcech, attorney for the Santa Ana Valley
Water Company, and w. Z. Smythe,
1"speaking for himself alone and others. "
There were ten signers to the call for
the meeting at Riverside, alleges Mr..
Works Seven of these were water com
panies, two banks in Riverside and one
public body. One part of Mr.. Works
philippe reads as follows:
This is a goodly array of corporate influence
against bill that; according 70 Mr. smythe,
was prepared in the interest OF corporations.
The thousands OF land owners whose lands are
dry because Of the greed Of such as these, who
have seized upon all the waters OF the streams
and held them for their own. whether they
need them not were not heard from nor in
vited TO be present. No was intended to be
there TO defend the bill.
When they had said their say Works
claims he was called upon TO say some
thing, but he was not on the programme,
and he says the committee went out as
soon as he was called upon the plat
form and had signed the resolutions pre-
viously prepared and were ready to re-
port long before he had concluded.
PERSONAL ATTENTIONS.
Personal attention is paid to the sew
eral speakers at the Riverside meeting
by Mr.. Works. He writes of S. Armer
that his literary style is much to be ad-
mired as manifested in his paper But
the recklessness with which its author
misrepresents the provisions of the bill
and his dense ignorance of its scope and
meaning are nothing short of remark
able" Concerning John G. North he al
leges that he starts out with a statement
that is wholly untrue OF Mr.. Finkle's s
paper the former Justice says that
1T is not specific enough to enable one to
answer what he says by reason or argu-
ment. 1t deals in gIittering generalities
not borne out by any facts or a refer
ence to any portion of the BILL
There are some cutting words also for
f. w. Freeman, attorney for the Temes-
cal Water Company, some of which are
to the effect that this objection only
shows how these water companies and
their distinguished presidents, attorneys
and engineers were put to it to find some
objection to this bill that will compass
its defeat; the last one is the worst and
most frivolous of the lot" One of the
statements of Judge George Z. Otis. at
torney for the Arrowhead Reservoir Com
pany and other water companies, is de-
clared to be purely gFatuitous and un-
founded and the apprehension wholly
fanciful and aside from any provision
contained in the bill
/ These are samples of a pugnacious
pamphlet which will be read at Sacra-
mento and throughout the State. Mr.
/ Works discusses at length the several
! objections that have been made to the
| Water and Forest Associations bill He
! comes to the defense of the commission
| that prepared the measure by saying
| THAT the bill is not in the interest of
| any water company must be evident
from the fact that such companies, both
( those appropriating water for sale. rental
1 or distribution, and what are termed CO.
operative companies, reunited in this
meeting in most vigorous attack upon
the bill"