Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-03-30

was even given in this case. The APP
praisers took the objection under aG-
vistment ana will rule later on the
matter.
Late in the afternoon Mr.. Allen, 4
| Massachusetts civil engineer of long
experience was called TO the stand by
Mr.. Baker. He has appraised the
plant for the company. and will be on
the stand through today.
When the morning session opened.
Mr.. Heath proceeded to Argue against
the admissbility as evidence of the lease
of the Define Water company to the
Augusta Water company dated May l.,
1889. and Running for 80 years. in con-
sideration of $1,000 yearly He spoll.
in substance as follows: The Devine
Water company was chartered by the
Legislature in 1874. There is no gen.
eral law by which one public service
corporation may lease its property and
franchise TO another public service cor
poration. No special legislation was
ever passed authorizing this lease. The
Augusta Water company was first in
the field here. Then came the Devine
company in 1874. and in 1856 the Au-
guSta company passed into new hands.
From 1856 to 1889 the two companies
did business here side by side under
their charter. Each had the right to
supply the whole city. In 1889 with an
utter absence of legal authority this
80 year lease was made. II is not
lease of franchise. for the terms fran
chise' or corporate rights do not APP
pear. Ii purpOrted to lease all of the
property Of the Devine company. Is
such lease a valid instrument within
the taking terms of the enabling act of
the Augusta Water District? The lease
is void and of no legal effect and
therefore not proper evidence Mr..
J Heath cited many cases in Maine and
other states. and also eminent legal au-
thoritieS. to show it as we'll established
| law that one QuaSi-pubiic or public
service corporation without special leg
| islatiVe authority. The chief principle
involved is that the company so leasing
| its property or corporate rights diSa-
hles itself from performing it's public
duties. THIS citation Of these cases
and his comments upon them occupied
| Mr.. Heath for two hours. and he ar
| sued long ami ably that in the fact of
| law 50 clearly established the appraiS-
crS must whole exclude the sO-called
case i'm question ana confine their
award 10 the property Of the Augusta
Water company without any regard TO
IT," Define system. He argued also
that tn" value Of the plant of the .tu-
SuSta Water company to the new dis
triCt is decreased by the existence Of
| the lDpNlnp lI:lIIt n "a inc
Germ whose Illegal lease to the Augusta
| water company in 1889 has since pre-
vented competition between the two
It the opening of the afternoon SEES
| sion. Mir. Baker contcnded that the aD-
rraiscrs should allow the lease to he
admitted in evidence. He said: I'm
les: tn" lease is admitted the facts of
tn" case cannot be known. The ex-
| hauStive argument of Mr. Heath will
be valuable later ANA before the proper
tribunal. but 1t present We cannot dis
cuSs this lease with Intelligence until
the lease itself is put in evidence. How
can we know whether the principles of
law quoted at length by Mr.. Heath
"nrly to this particular lease until its
subject matter is known to us" M
document can be construed by n legal
tribunal until that document is put in
evidence. Moreover. we hold this lease
rs Il valid obligation and the Dcvne
system as living, essential part Of the
property Of the Augusta Water COM
Tany. The law provides that the value
fixed Ivy these appraisers shall be final
and the valuation cannot be fixed until
the whole property is considered. our
rights cannot be secured unless we arc
allowed to prove the facts. 1t is 4
mnnstrous proposition by which the
facts can be known. This lease is the
foundation Of our claim Of rights and
that must be in evidence before the
cas-. can be fully and fairly heard"
III reply Nj. Heath argued that the
appra isCrs have the right to take
Judicial notice Of all laws affecting
these two water companies. There is
lno need of evidence about these char
ters." he said for the law gives you
authority 70 take notice of all enact
lnnnts. If evidence is needed rs to this
,asc. without the lease itself being put
in. you nave already in evidence the
facts about the springs of the Devine
system which the Augusta Water COM
pany took possession Of in 1889. Mr.
IiLker has told YOU of the income Of the
Augusta Water company from tic
, Devine system. If this lease had heer
| offered in the first place. the appeal Of
4 Mr.. Ba!ler would be of some weight
/ Hut the facts arc already in, and this
void and Illegal document is submitted
(too late. The two companies did not
Ihave the capacity to make this con-
tract. and no authority WIS ever giver
/ them. It is question Of law. not O.
| facts. This court would not receive il
| evidence p deed to a part of thi:
/ property unless the deed bore 4 seal
No more can it receive a lease Which
was Soid from the start. This lease
does not have to be put in evidence TO
i the ahcraisnrs to know its conditions