Los Angeles herald., 1906-03-31
GRAB OF RIVERBED DISTRICT GIVEN
DEA OWBYNAY YOR AND COUNCIL

Keag to state that L wished a reply in
writing-not verbal.
"Mr. Gilmore, in reply to my letter
to him, stated verbally that he would
not be in a position to give the name
of the real beneficiary for three or
four days"
In any event, however, the city coun-
ellis gift to e. w. Gilmore, his sue
cessors or assigns of a franchise in
the Los Angeles river bed is worth
just what Mr.. Gilmore paid for tab
solutely nothing!
This is the opinion of some of the
best attorneys in Los Angeles, and
while Assistant City Attorney Goudge
has not said so in so many words. he
has strongly intimated that If the coun-
Gil would ask the advice of the city
attorney he would tell it so.
To all questions as to the powers of
the city council in selling or otherwise
disposng of this portion of the river
bed, Attorney Goudge has invariably
prefaced his answers with: "If the city
council has a right to grant this fran
chise," and he has said it with an
emphasis that left little doubt of his
meaning. He is reluctant to express an
opinion on the rights of the council in
granting the franchise under any cir
cumstances, for his attention has not
ings. Should the council ask for a
legal opinion the city attorneys office
would be able to render it off-hand for
all the deputies have been studying the
case thoroughly.
River Bed Is City Property
While public Indignation has been
worked UP to fever pitch by the
audacious action of the council, and
H. 1ATT
George ]. Gould's telegram to Mayor
McAleer yesterday. absolutely deny
ing any connection with the scheme, it
is probable this Indignation is wasted
except as an object lesson to the coun-
ell. for should the beneficiary of the
councils generosity attempt to profit
by it the courts will probably have
something to say.
The Los Angeles river bed within its
official boundaries, arbitrarily made by
SURVEYS. is as much the property of
the city of Los Angeles as is Central
park, Eastlake, Westlake or any other
part of the park system, or as is the
city hall or any other property which
the city owns in fee simple. The deputy
city attorneys are agreed on this point
and City Attorney Mathews is on
record as having so asserted.
Only by vote of the people can any
privileges be granted TO any lnulNluudl
or corporation on this property. The
city attorneys office is only waiting
the council to call on it to make an Of
ficial statement to this effect, although
no member of the citys legal depart
ment will say so in so many words
until the council has called for their
opinion.
Gould Makes a Denial
It is contended, however, that while
this grant may not be legal it shows up
the council. 1t is asserted that the
council believed it was giving legal
franchise and the fact that this is not
so is no fault of the legislative body.
What is considered an official re-
pudiation of George ]. Gould's interests
in the franchise is an exchange of
telegrams between him and Mayor Nc
Aleer. in which Gould denies all
knowledge of the case. The kilograms
are as follows:
Los Angeles, March 80, 1906.
George ]. Gould, New York:
Intimated by interested parties that
p. w. Gilmore acted in your behalf in
securing railway franchise in this city.