Coeur d'Alene evening press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1907-1929, 1907-12-31

In an interview today In regard
TO an article appearing Saturday ev-
ening in the Chronicle one OF the at
torneys for those people who claim
70 be preparing to bring a big suit
against the Consumers company Ia
recover the money paid for alleged
illegal taps. made the following
statement:
II saw the article In the Chroal-
Gle. The statement came from the
Consumers company. understand
that the correspondent OF the Chron-
icle il an employe OF the Consumer
company. II contains numerous mis-
guiding statements, especially the
one saying that the supreme court
decided the matter on a technicality.
As far AZ being misguided attorneys
In the matter. have only to say that
the opinion Of the supreme court
affords us all the Justification we
need for the position we take. The
supreme court said In the Boutwell,
case:
The only further point to be
considered in this case IL whether
the water company can require the
consumer TO pay for the tap and for
making the connection with its main.
II seems that this point ought to be
disposed OF without much diflculty.
The franchise for laying pipes In the
streets and alleys and maintaining
and operating q water system is
granted by the municipality 10 The
water company. The property owner
has no right TO dig in the streets
and alleys and lay pipes, aud, II he
should do so. he would acquire no
property right therein. The main
and all laterals. fixtures, and con-
nections within the franchise limit
belong 10 the company. and altogoth-
or constitute the water system. 1t
Is not the business Of the citizen or
consumer to construct any part OF
the company's system, nor Is II the
eompanyiB business to place the pipes
and fixtures on the consumers prem
Uses. There il clearly aud we'll
defined boundary line existing be-
tween the property OF the water com
pany and the property OF the lot own
er-that line is the one existing be-
tween the lot and the street or al
ley. The citizen owns hts pipe and
fixtures 10 that line, and beyond Il
Ia the companys property and wat
or system. The rights. duties. and
obligations OF each go to this ex-
tent, and no further
"A reading of the above will con-
vince anyone that the company had
no right 10 make the charge. we think
they have no right TO retain the mon
ely they collected for these taps.
Geo. Harding. manager of the Con-
sumers company, was shown the
above statement and said
we are not inclined TO threah this
matter out in the newspapers and /
do not care TO make an extended
statement: but 50 far a. the chron-
icle article In concerned II was pub
lished without the knowledge or con-
sent OF the company. We are follow
Ing the custom of most places 10
charging for taps and believe we are
within our franchise limits. On these
grounds our business interests re-
quiTe as TO have the matter adjuds-
ieated In the courts and until q decis-
lon 10 finally rendered against us we
win continue 90 make the charge.
The matter is one for the courts 20
settle.
There are two sides 20 the qaes-
ton. Neither the franchise of the
old company nor the later one. both |
Of which are now owned by the com
pany. provide for free taps. All taps
made by the old company were paid
for at si0 each. We nov charge
the consumer 81 for half inch and |
$3.50 for inch taps. the rates tlxed
by the water commission at the re-
quest OF the citizens now lighting the
company. Our reason for Offering
free taps when We entered the held.
was for the purpose Of getting busi-
hess that could Be secured in no other
way. When the citizens begin 10
ieei the burden Of making sewer taps
The water tap charges viii seem but
) drop In the bucket.
There is also = state law providing
charges for water for fire +
protection, which our company has