Arizona republican., 1906-03-10
WATER WORKS DECISION
 BY U. $. SUPREME COURT
A Case on All Tours With the Phoenix
 Controversy
It was Decided in Favoro Knoxville Tenn Holding That It is not Barred From the Construction of Munic- ipal System.

An advanced copy of the Supreme Court Reporter, received in this city yesterday contains the text of d deci- sion by the United States supreme court, which in effect disposes of the controversy between the Phoenix Wa ter company and the city of Phoenix in favor of the latter
 The decision was rendered in the case of the Knoxville Water company against the mayor and aldermen of the city of Knoxville, Tenn. The points involved were substantially the same as those in the case of the Phoenix Water company against the city, and the essential point was precisely the same, the con tention of the appellant being that the city of Knoxville, under a franchise granted to the appellant, could not es- tablish a municipal system of water works. The franchise of the Knox vile Water company was even strong CT than that of the Phoenix Water company for the reason that it was ex- elusive, barring competition for a pe- riod of thirty years.
 The history of the relations between tn company and the city was as fol- lows: Prior to 1882 the city of Knox vile contemplated the erection of a municipal system of water works and with that end in view purchased cer- tain real estate to be used in connec- ton with the plant. The project was later abandoned, having been deemed to be impracticable at that time.
 The city accordingly advertised for bids for the construction of a plant which it was to have the to be agreed upon. There were ion of the plaintiff was accepted. In con- sideratiOn of the covenant of the plaintiff, the city agreed not to grant a franchise to any other person or cor poratiOn for a period of thirty years. It agreed to pay the company $50 each annually for seventy-fiVe hydrants, and in a roundabout way agreed by paying a lump sum additional rental to exempt the company from the pay ment of taxes on its plant for five years.
 There was a provision for the pur- chase of the system by the city at the end of a stated period if a price could be agreed upon and subsequently the city was authorized by the legislature 10 issue bonds for that purpose, but nothing came of it. There was later an authorization by the legislature for the issuance of bonds to the amount of S750,0 for the construction of a municipal system. The act provided for the appointment by the city coun- cil of a water-works commission sim liar to the Phoenix commission and invested it with like powers.
 Then followed an injunction suit up- on the theory that the legislative act impaired the obligations of the con tract between the plaintiff and the city and upon the further theory that the maintenance by the city of a system of waterwOrks in competition with those of the water company would in eVitably destroy the value of the lat ter's property and be taking under the sanction Of the state the company's property for public use without com pensation in violation of the due pro cess of law enjoined by the fourteenth amendment.
 A question of jurisdiction was rais-