The San Francisco call., 1904-07-06
MAYOR SPEAKS
TO RATEPAIERS
Urges Them TO Hold Their
Water Bill Receipts for
Possible Rebate Claims
EXPLAINS SITUATION
Gives Reasons Why a De-
ciSiOn Favorable to the
City Council is Expected
Oakland Office San Francisco Gail
1nl6 RrnadMav- July 5.

1916 Broadway, July 5.
Mayor Warren OIney in an official
statement made to-day has advised all
water rate payers to save their receipts
for bills pending the decision of the
courts in the water rate suit shortly to
80 20 trial before Judge Gilbert of the
United States Circuit Court.
In explanation the Mayor says that
the water company has given a bond in
$4,000 70 protect rate payers in case
the litigation over the valuation of the
plant shall go against the corporation,
and the company shall be compelled to
rebate the amount Of difference between
that collected under the old rate and
such a rate as may be allowed by the
court.
His Honor recites that the rates fixed
by the Council enforcement Of which
has been temporarily enjOined, are
from % TO 30 per cent lower than the
last fiscal years rate. upon which the
water company wiz continue to collect
The Mayor adds:
is my belief that the court. when il
decides the case on il merits. will uphold the
rates fixed by the Council and you VIII be
enabled 10 collect the difference from the
water company II you preserve the legal ehi-
ccnce. My opinion Is based in part upon the
decision OF Judge Gilbert in granting the pre-
liIninsry injunction. and j think short state
ment of the case will show that my opinion
is justified.
NoW. in rendering his decision that a pre-
lininery injunction should issue in order TO
the merits, Judge Gilbert held as follows
j. He would not on this preliminary motion
decide whetFAr the rates nEed by the Coun-
cl we're too low. but would follow the Hart
decision for the purpose OF the motion only.
.. He held that the present Council not
bound 10 follow the example Of any previous
Council in fixing rates. 3. He declared that
from the evidence before him: There is in
my opinion nothing in the facts shown in this
case 70 Justify the charge that in adopting
the resolution which is complained OF the
Council acted arbitrarily or were actuated by
improper motives or by any purpose save 10
d what IN their judgment, was right Re
tween the complainant and the city and its
inhs bitants.
The above is quoted literally from the de-
cision. II il is called 70 mind that the con-
stitution confers a special power upon the
Council 20 TX water rates and the Council acts
81 Judge Gilbert says our Council acted, what
more be required? The Supreme Court
of the United States has said that courts
have no right to interfere in such cases unless
there has been such clear breach Of duty by
cstor5.
Therefore, We have right TO assume that
on the trial the decision Will be in favor OF
the city But We expect that every device
VIII be used TO postpone a final hearing and
oeclsion comes put you nave every reason 70
expect IL. Therefore keep your water bills
50 that in the end you may receive the diff
ference between what the company charges
you and the rates fixed by the Council, plus
interest thereon al the rate OF per cent per
annum.
One reason the couft granted the Injunction
was because there are 50 many thousands Of
you who pay only small each month
that II IL should finally be held that the
company entitled to a higher rate than
the Council fixed the company could not col
lect near all IL would be entitled 10. but by
requiring the company to give a bond for
your benefit in case il lost the court thought
no practical harm will be done
II you are not IN a position TO avail your
selves OF this bond YOU may be out or in
5ured, each Of you in a comparatively small
sum- but in the aggregate large sum