Arizona republican., 1905-01-08

was too low, but by the decision of yesterday it is reduced by forty cents until now it Is only seventy-five cents more than holders of water rights have to pay. The same evidence was introduced as in the Newsholne case so. that it amounted to really a re- trial of that action. It will be ob- served in the following extract from the oral opinion of the court that the finding is based on an esti- mate of the earnings of the company.
 Concerning the proper price of wa ter the court said: "The question has been very ably presented by counsel on both sides, the claim of the plain tiff being that the defendant company is estopped from charging the plain tiff any greater amount for the ser vice of the water than it charges it's stockholders or water-right owners.
 'T only finished my investigation of this case last night, and therefore have not been able to formulate my views in respect to that question so as to be able to submit them in the form of written opinion, or in the form of an opinion that I desire to have filed in the case; but, briefly, what I think on that point is this: If this corpora tion was starting in today to furnish the service of water to people desiring it in this valley, and they should make a charge to their stockholders for the service of water at a certain sum, and then holding themselves open to the public as a public agency to carry the water to others desiring it, make an- other and different charge to those other persons, I think the court in that case would perhaps be justified in say iv,er hot ohn he crimination, and that if they made their charge to one, the fact that that person was a stockholder would be no reason why he should receive the ser vice at a less rate than any other per son; but the situation in this case is very different. This corporation has for years been serving water to this valley, and has hitherto served it only to stockholders or to such persons as obtained their rights through stock holders, either directly on the stock or upon water rights issued to such stockholders, or upon the order of wa ter-right owners
 "They have only charged for the service of water, practically the actual cost of the delivery of the water. It is true that at one time there was a dividend declared, but practically all through the life of the company, in the service of water in this valley to the people interested in it, the com pany has charged only such rates as would return to them the cost of op- eration; in other words, instead of charging what might be a reasonable charge for the service of the water to return to them a fair interest on their investment, such interest going to these stockholders in the form of dividends, they have determined and decided to furnish the water at the ac- tual cost; and this has been done to the benefit of the stockholders, in lieu of any dividends or interest that might be given to them on their investment.
 Now recently. by order Of the court. persons not stockholders or water right holders have compelled the company to furnish them water, the court having held that by reason of the acts of the defendant company in the past it was a quasi public agen-