The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1908-06-25
City's Legal Advisers Prepare to
Fight Latest Move to
Fix Rates
Water Company Faces Loss of
Franchise and Plant ii
II Makes Price
Statutes Declare Against Any
Other Than Supervisors
Determining Tax
Intricate Issues May Lead to a
Plea for Continuance by
Municipality

Assistant City Attorney Thomas T.
Haven began yesterday to meet the is
sues raised in the latest Spring Valley
suit The city has until Saturday to
show cause why the supervisors
should not be enjoined from enforcing
the rates adopted for the next fiscal
year. Every clerk and stenographer
in the city attorneys Office has been
put to work on the case, but it is not
believed that the documents can be
prepared by Saturday. A continuance
until Monday may, therefore, be
asked. The new rates would become
effective Wednesday and 1t is under
stood to be the disposition of the court
to grant or deny the petition for the
temporary injunction before that time.
The attorneys for the Spring Valley
water company reasserted yesterday
their belief that the injunction would
be granted and declared again their
intention, in that event. to establish
their own rates. When this was called
TO the attention of Havens he said he
saw no reason why the city could not,
in that case, make use of some legal
enforcing its rates.
NEW ISSUES RAISED
Attorneys who have investigated the
matter say that the suit brings up new
issues not definitely determined in the
written law. The case has, therefore,
assumed vast Importance. as it will es-
tablish precedents in the long con-
tinued litigation over public utility
charges in California Every authority
goes to show that the rate fixing pow
err vested as it is in the board of su-
pervisors, cannot be assumed either by
the court or the company. The court.
it is stated, may, as in the past, indi-
cate what 1T would consider a reason
able rate but it has no power to make
a rate. The power of the board OF su-
pervisors in the matter is set forth in
the constitution follows:
The use of all water now ap-
propriated, or that may hereafter
be appropriated. for sale, rental or
distribution, is hereby declared to
be a public use, and subject to the
regulation and control of the state,
in the manner to be prescribed by
law; provided. that the rates or
compensation to be collected by
any person, company or corporation
in this state for use of water sup
piled TO any city and county, or
city, or town, or the inhabitants
thereof shall be fixed. annually,
and county, or city, or town coun-
Gil, or other governing body of such
city and county, or city, or town,
by ordinance or otherwise. in the
manner that other ordinances or
legislative acts or resolutions are
passed by such body. and shall con-
tinue in force for one year and no
longer
MUST FIX RATES
Such ordinances or resolutions
shall be passed in the month OF
February of each year. and take
effect on the first day of July
thereafter. Any board or body
failing 10 pass the necessary Ordi-
nances or resolutions fixing water
rates, where necessary, or in such
time, shall be subject to peremp-
tory process to compel action. at
the suit of any party interested,
and shall be liable to such further
processes and penalties as the
legislature may prescribe
Any person, company or corpora
tion collecting water rates in any
city and county, or city. or town.
established. shall forfeit the fran
chises and water works of such
person. company or corporation to
the city and county, or city. or
town. where the same are collected,
for the public use.
AS the constitution states that tha
rate as fixed shall continue in forcs
for one year and no longer" it would
Injunction would automatically extend
the prevailing rates over another year.
MAY FORFEIT FRANCHISE
Another interesting section OF ths
constitutional provision is that which
declares that any corporation that col
lects under a schedule other than that
fixed by the board shall forfeit its
franchise. 1t is all new ground, how
ever. and the state is without positive
legal precedent in the matter
The nearest issue TO the one in ques-
ton is what is known as the San
Diego water case. One of the princi-
ples laid down in that case by the
state supreme court has been sum
married. in the California reports as
follows:
The court has no power 70 determine
any limit of just compensation, but
only 10 INQUIRE whether some COM
pensation, however small is allowed.
and the question of the extent or limit
of such compensation is Tor the muni-
cipaI body alone to determine.
Another principle growing out OF the
same decision is summarized by the
same authority as follows:
.sThe question of just compensation
is a judicial question to be determined
in the ordinary course OF judicial pro-
ceedings and the water company Is en-
titled to a net compensation at least
equal to the lowest current rate OF
Continued ON Page :, Column