Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-09-20

going to buy? Why, they won't even
agree to give any title at all to a very
important part of the property"
To substantiate his statement an
other part of the option was shown. 1t
read: 1T (meaning the same company
as above referred to1 does not, however,
agree to furnish certificates of title to
it's water rights. it's bitches, pipe lines
or rights of way"
By the terms of the agreement which
Mayor Farley has made with the wa
ter company, the opponents say, the
city must call a bond election which
must authorize the purchase of the
properties before the company will
make any effort to furnish certificate
of title. If the certificates should prove
unsatisfactory to the councilmen who
are to pass on the matter, instead OF
but the city is to stand the cost of the
but the city is tostand the cost of the
election.
A general description of the property
has been filed with the city officials,
but it Is understood, according to the
option, that the certificates of title
may modify the description and condi-
ton of titles. To quote further from
the option, 1.-THE understanding being
that the company will sell all of the
property which it owns excepting its
commercial account and corporate
books, its moneys, it's claims, and its
bills and accounts receivable), can sell
no more, and does not agree to do So"
City Gets Good Bargain
In the minds of the opposition a ques-
ton is raised by the articles of agree
ment as to what property the compa-
MES own and just what title they have
to the property that they claim and
have under their control.
The opposition is inslstent on being
shown that the companies have a title
to the porperty that they seek to con-
vey to the city, and that the property
is worth what they have been offered
by the administration.
The opposition declares no deprecia
ton of the plants since the price was
fixed originally has been figured on
in making the new price now offered.
Friends of the proposed purchase as
sert that the increased valuation of the
realty more than compensates for the
depreciation in the plants and distrib-
uting systems. Some of the more zeal
Gus ones even declare that to sell the
plants to the city at the price asked is
an act of philanthropy on the part of
the stockholders, as the property is
worth not less than $2,000,O0O to the
city.
Opponents to the bonds say that in
the advice that Dillon and Hubbard
gave when they were called upon to di-
rect the water proceedings 1t was point
ed out as advantageous to have an alb
stract of title of the property of the
companies, and absolutely essential
that binding contract of sale be made
that would bind the companies to sell
in case the people voted to buy.
In the first proceedings the abstract
of title was not insisted upon and no
of sale was executed, such
as was necessary.
In the present proceedings an option
has been granted to the city that, is
said to fully protect the companies,
but affords little protection to the city,
while, as before, the assurance that
clear title to all of the property can be
conveyed is lacking.
The "antis" state that according to
the agreement with the water compa-