The San Francisco call., 1907-03-02
GALLAGHER WANTS CITY
TO BUY WATER PLANT
Continued from Page ]. Column

the duty Of the city to take immedi-
ate possession of all the properties OF
the spring Valley Water Company de-
clared forfeited by your resolution.
Suca Is the conclusion OF City Attor-
ney Burke's letter OF advice 10 the Su-
pervisors TO sustain IL he argues
that the ownership by the water cor
norati0n OF its plant is not the same as
private ownership. and that q public
service corporation IS liable 10 q pen
atty of forfeiture IN way that q
strictly private owner may not be- IN
case the courts should differ with him,
he counsels the purchase Of the tangi-
bic properties for what they are worth,
"ouantum meruit," he puts IT, as II he
wolld add 10 the mystery
Acting MavOr Gallagher holds that
the declaration Of the Board OF Super
visors has already put cloud on the
title OF Spring Valley in its property.
He said.
propose to arrange conference with NJ. B.
kellogg. attorney Tor the Spring Valley Water
Company for tile purpose OF inducing the on
ciais of the company 10 put reasonable Folua.
tl0n on rs piant. ] am confident that II that
= done tho DeooIe VII vote IN favor Of acQuir-
ing the system e municipal water supply
re plan 10 nv MIND VIII he solution OF the
question and obyiate the necessity of resorting
to the courts 70 validate tue declaration OF
forfeiture Of the company franchises and
Whether tie suit should BE- initiated by the
company by the city Is a matter for future
determination. but am of the opinion that the
c0mnanT wlH oeem IL wise procedure 70 test
the matter lmmedislely its own account.
with view 10 protecting the financial standing
OF It's securities. ] feel sure that the state
courts VIII uphold rhe constitutional provision
that company collecting rates for water IN
excess OF the rates established by ordinance, as
the Spring Valley Company has DONE shall for.
fes rs franchise.
The necessity for resorfing to the courts win
- q
titious VALUATION of 81. 100000 on Us plant to
ralue angrCKimaling that fixed By our city
e valuation or say $50. COO. 00O. We could prob
ably Dc business and feel sure that the people
would vote IN favor of ASSUMING a bonded In
tebieoness b. an amount approximating that
tNed by our engineers as being the fun value OF
She plant.
Gallagher said that the clerk of the
Board Of Supervisors would be in
structed to file notifications with the
Recorders Of the counties IN which the
Spring Valley Company owns proper
<ies, certifying 10 the act Of the Super
visors declaring the properties forfeited
10 San Francisco. These counties are
san Francisco, Alameda and San Mateo
The company viii probably then take
steps 10 remove the clouds to its titles
by court proceedings.
Gallagher said that drastic action
was taken by the Supervisors because
Chief Clerk Booker Of the Spring Valley
Company had testified under oaNl in tho
Investigation that the company was
collecting % per cent more for water
than the ordinance OF 1906 allowed.
william r. Baggett. who is retained
by the City Attorneys Office for the
suits with the spring Valley Company
said that Il was with reluctance that
the step had been taken that might re-
Fulf IN the depreciation Of the stock oi
the Spring Valley. Like Burke he re-
GREETED the losses to the small holders
and was OF the opinion that II the terms
OF q sale could be arranged with anyone
but the vvell-paid officials OF the com
pany. who would thereby lose theii
iccrative positions. II would have beer
co7summated long ago Baggett said
There Is q business side 70 this matter. Il
the city Is 70 own itf own water supply th'
natural thing 20 DO Is 70 purchase the oistrib
orine system of the Spring Valley. We woult
prefer % Do this 6y smlcaele e means ne o0t here
NJ. B. Kellogg. attorney for th'
Spring Valley, like Captain Payson, as
ssinned an attitude Of indifference IN the
face OF all these threats, He insisted
that when the time came the cOmpan.
would show in court the illegality Of
the attempted seizure
1T was no mistake on the part OF th'
law department Of this company tha'
against the rate fixed last year." h'
said, but he refused TO explain the pur'
nose OF the omission Of the annual in
junction 10 1905. He said:
We hold that the city has no right to seiz.
any OF the properties OF the company.
would be contrary 10 the federal constitution 4
such q thing were 10 be permitted. There Il
another way. however in which we shall NEE
fhfs move, g way which j not ct nb
prfy 70 dlvulge. II r. certain that the Super
risors have no jurisdiction over property Outsid'
fbe city and county
At the City Attorneys Office II wai
contended that when the valuation o.
the Spring Valley has been made fol
the purpose Of fixing the rate the. com
pany has always claimed that its sys
TEN was q single entity, and has pro
tested against the Supervisors leaving
out the portions OF the plant outside th'
county. This, II is claimed, VIII estol
the company from limiting the Juris
diction OF the Supervisors in the pres
lent case.