The San Francisco call., 1909-11-14
SPRING VALLEY
PROPOSALSARE
OF NO EFFECT
Supervisors Advised That They
Can Not Act on Water
COmpany's Proposition
S45,000,00O Bond Issue for the
Sierra Supply VIII Be Sub=
mitted TO the People

Attorney Curtis II. Lindley that no
action could lawfully be taken upon
the offers Of the Spring Valley water
company The city administration de-
cided yesterday 10 send committee to
negotiate with the corporation and in
the meantime 10 carry forward with
out interruption the plans for the
Sierra system. This means that the
election for s45,00O.000 bond issue to
bring in the Lake Eleanor supply win
he held December 2S. as previously in
tended Approval was given the or
dinanoe calling for the election. 1t
VIII be formally passed at tomorrow's
meeting OF the board OF supervisors.
Attorney LindIey. who has cooper
sted with the city attorneys office in
all matters pertaining TO the water
question, declared that under the pro-
visions of the state constitution and
The city charter the municipality could
rot entertain the company's tenders. In
TINS view he was supported by Mayor
Taylor Unwilling. however. TO forego
the opportunity OF adjusting matters
with Spring Valley the mayor named
committee OF three to treat with the
gated Supervisor Thomas Jennings.
chairman OF the finance committee:
Supervisor James A. Johnston. chair
man Of the committee on public utili-
ties, and City Attorney Percy V. Long
. They viii endeavor TO get the com
pany 10 name satisfactory price.
VOTE OF THE PEOPLE
1t was stated that the development
OF the Hetch Hetehy project and nego-
tiations for the Spring Valley plant
could be carried forward Simultaneous
ly. Should the city decide TO purchase
Spring Valley 1t could cancel such part
OF the Hetch Hetchy bond issue as de-
sired. The Spring Valley plant could
only be acquired it was emphasized,
by vote OF the people.
Lindley held that President Bourn's
first offer-to sell the distributing sys-
tem-wss untenable, as that did not
comprise public utility. The second
offer-to arbitrate-Lindley contended,
called for an authority not vested in
7he local government. He took the
View that the company must make a
definite offer to sell its plant at a
stated figure before the city could act
At the same nme Lindley declared
that the city must vote the bonds for
the Lake Eleanor source at once or
forfeit its right under the Garfield
permit TO the water in the Yosemite
national park. In this Mayor TAYLOR
concurred, saying:
As q result OF my interview with
Mr. Bsllinger / believe il is Of the last
Importance for US not only to submit
this bond issue, but to carry it, He
viii not believe we are doing any
thing but bear Spring Valley unless we
90 ahead and vote to acquire the
Sierra source.
CONFERENCE WITH MAYOR
The meeting yesterday was entirely
unofficial 1t was held in the mayors
office in the Mills building. There We're
present: Mayor Taylor; Harry Nc
kannay. his secretary: Curtis II. Lind
ley, Assistant District Attorney John
T. Nourse. City Engineer Marsden
Manson. Charles A Day, Michael Casey
and John =. McGilvray OF the board of
public works: II. A Mason. bond ex-
pert OF the board OF supervisors; John
+. Behan, clerk OF the board; 7. C.
Friedlander. secretary of the Mer-
chants exchange, and Supervisors
Pavot Murphy. Balcon Murdock. Jen-
nings. McLeran. Center. Connolly, Pol
lok. Johnston. Broderick, McAlIister,
COmte, Booth, Sanderson and D'Ancona.
A new communication was received
from President Bourn OF Spring Val
Iey, in which he explained how he
reached his figure Of sI9, 10000 for the
50 SOC, 600 for franchise. Mayor Taylor
suggested that the legal aspect OF the
matter be considered first. Attorney
Lndley was then called upon. He
said:
In passing upon the legal phases OF
the situation we can not deal with Ques-
tions OF policy. However much we
might feel disposed to compromise or
desire as individuals TO treat with the
fFp
bound by the limits Of the charter. The
proposition to sell the distributing
plant and to contract to sell water do
not embrace what can be considered as
the acquisition of a public utility The
charter defines the method Of procedure.
We have asked for an offer TO sell the
water supply. The offer here is that the
city acquire a distributing system, and
is in no sense an offer to sell a public
utility. II is not a reply TO the request
or the board Of supervisors. It is plain
~ not an offer 10 sell public utility.
l. is an offer TO turn over merely a dis
trfbuting system. They do not offer 10
comprise the real public utility In my
Judgment the first proposition is not in
conformity with the charter.
IN the Root case the company took
& position directly at variance with that
which IL now assumes. In that case ii
argued tnal AIe I1clIU tltAIlt UOHN
election was illegal, in that 1t did not
provide for a complete public utility
The offer Is not IN conformity with
the constitutional provision by which
the board OF supervisors must fix rates.
The company must have known it.
OFFER TO COMPROMISE
..The offer 10 compromise is some |
thing the city obviously can not enter
tain 1t is not in conformity with the /
charter The city has no power to fix /
the value of public utilities by arbitra- |
ton. It might hx value by arbitra-
ton. but this would be merely the ini-
tiatfon Of negotiations as provided by /
the charter. The Spring Valley would /
then have TO submit an offer to sell at /
the arbitrated price There is nothing
binding in the slightest degree in such /
system Of arbitration. An arbitra-
fson can only be made binding when
the parties take the matter into court
Such an arbitration as the Spring VAL
lev proposes can in no way be made
binding. II is plausible on its face,
but delusive. It could be repudiated |
bv either party. There is no compli- !
snce with the charter in these letters /
7 do not believe the offer can legally be |
considered by the city.
i say this in all fairness to Spring /