The San Francisco call., 1907-03-03

public use. The provision OF the con-
atitution dealing with that subject
also gives the right TO any company
TO use the city's streets without charge
for its mains and other works neces-
sery in the distribution OF water Tor
public use. The constitution also pro
vides that the privilege thus freely
granted 20 q person or individual shail
be subject TO the right OF the super
,-isors. or other governing body, TO TX
the rates. And, IN conclusion, the same
constitution provides 8 penalty for the
collection OF excessive rates (those
other than legally establisheo), ana
that penalty is the forfeiture OF the
property which has only value IN lts
relation as a carrier OF water to tho
public.
BURKE Is CONFIDENT
Burke saws that he is fortified with
nuuaberless citations from law ana Su-
r,rerne Court rulings 10 show that
Sprine valley is now down and out
He says that the city owns the prop
ertv. and that he, as City Attorney,
viii see that that ownership s defend
ed He says that there is no need Tor
haste or hurry, no necessity OF cALlng
for force or the use OF police posses Tor
the city 60 take control OF what e
rightfuily its own He win recommend
that the machinery Of the government
be put in motion. in order that the
plant NAV be possessed and operated
for the public benefit within q reason
able time, and that the change be not
made so quickly as TO interfere with
the present service of water to the
water talxers-some 47.0oO household
ers It may be decided TO recommend
that water takers refuse 10 pay further
charges TO the Spring Valley colec-
tors-it may even be worth while Tor
the city to enjoin the company from
collecting rates which now belong TO
tho city.
The situation is one both so astound-
ing and so unexpected that II has pro
duced a wide range of criticism and
heated talk as TO the real effect OF the
law and the real purpose OF the Super
visors IN taking advantage OF the pro-
vision OF the constitution. Lawyers say
that II the section OF the constitution
applies here Il viii involve every water
enterprise IN the State-lrrig cation and
domestio-anc that the smallest com
pany selling water for public use is as
liable TO the forfeiture clause OF the
constitution as is the Spring Valley.
Critics looking for an excuse for the
forfeiture resolution OF the Supervisors
and the attitude OF the City Attorneys
office have attempted TO trace a con-
Meeting reason with the schemes OF the
various water enterprises now offered
for sale 70 the city. James D. Phelan.
ex-Mayor and sympathiZer with the
.-ruolumne scheme" charges that the
forfeiture movement IS engineered by
persons who want TO sell water to the
city and who know that the city must
have distributing and reservoir sys-
TEN before the proposed plan would be
practicable. Phelan argues that the
forfeiture campaign would serve to
lower the price Of shares In Spring Val
lev 70 q point where they could be
bought right: in other words, that
the selling company could get control
aEeaply OF the Spring Valley stock and
then sell its works to the corporation
that has a water supply 70 ofter.
c. ~ BeSl, general manager OF the
Bay Counties Water Company, resents
Indignantly the intimation that his
company has fathered the forfeiture
proceedings against Spring Valley.
we would like TO beat Spring Valley
on water proposition, and we VIII DO
81 fairly-not BY resorting TO any foul
means" he said. The Bay Cities water
supply, heading on the Costumes River,
has been offered to the city for $40 000,-
OOO Beal says that the proposition has
nothing TO DO with the city's acquire
nent OF its own distributing system
nor the building OF 8 pipe line 70 the
rnountains-in this instance 115 miles.
II is understood that the public has
condemned the quantity and the quality
OF the Spring Valley supply and that
San Francisco must eventually go TO
the Sierra for water to drink, cook with
or bathe IN.
The Tuolumne scheme, according to