The San Francisco call., 1909-04-29
SPRING VALLEYS
CHIEF REFUSES
TOCO-OPERATE
BOurn Declines to Join City ia
Requesting Governor to
Sign Condemnation Bill
GiIIett Objects to Payment
Terms, but Long Is Hopeful
of Finding Way

VI Ah1ihS W oy
President William B. Bourn OF the
Spring Valley water company. refused
Yesterday to join with the city onicials
IN requesting Governor uiIlett to sign
the condemnation bill The suggestion
hat he cooperate was made direct by
Mayor Taylor, but Bourn. responded
that he did not feel It incumbent upon
him to do so. The bill extends a. nau-
nieipaiity's right Of eminent domain to
water supplies, and It was regarded as
an important factor in assisting the
city to acquire the Spring Valley plant
The officials Of the water company had
s9rofessed a willingness 10 facilitate
condemnation proceedings. but Bourh's
attitude threw new light upon the
entire matter.
Although The city officials were
somewhat surprised AT the announce
Tnent Of Governor GiIleu that he would
sign neither the condemnation bill nor
the measure. extending the time Of pay
ment after condemnation from 80 DAYS
10 six months. the beIief was expressed
that the way could still be found TO go
forward with the. proceedings city
Attorney Percy N.sLong had not COM
pleted his investigation into the legal
phases Of the case yesterday afternoon,
but ne spoke in an optimistic vein: He
hoios that the city Will find the needed
relief under the water district plan
which has been made possible byrecent
legislative enactment He. expressed
Il 81
biil had not been signed. 1t was pre-
pared he explained to make a legal
certainty of what had been clouded by
4 degree OF doubt
REFUSES TO COOPERATE
Mayor Taylor was not prepared yes
ierday 10 discuss the legal issues that
had been raised in the letter addressed
10 nun By the governor He told, how
ever OF his interview with Bourn:
i asked Mr. Bourn over. the phone to
JOIN with me in requesting Governor
Gillett 10 sign the condemnation bin.'
said the mayor. Mr.. Bourn refused
thought I should do everything. ia
my power TO persuade the governor to
give his approval TO the measure. and
believed that If the president Of the
Spring Valley company should Join me
IN the request, the governor might look
more favorably upon the proposition
crate with the city officials in the mat
Ter and Remorializee the governor to
allow the measure TO become law. but
he declined TO do so
AS for Mr. Bourn's reasons for re-
fusing, we'll he contented himself with
stating that he did not. feel himself
called upon to- take that step. Also, as
understood him, he was OF the opih-
ion that the compapy's attorneys held
ha nff al ,Ir-
To condemn the plant. As the conver-
sation was held over the telephone
can not state this positively, but I be-
lieFe that was the purport OF his OBJ
scrvstion.
No. ] would not care at this time TO
comment upen the governors letter.
Nor upon the question as to whether
the city has the power under the pres
ent law 10 condemn the plant The
governor quotes a number of authori-
ties, and I have not sufficiently studied
his letter upholdiEg the pocket veto to
20 into the matter
GILLETT.S ATTITUDE
Giletts letter setting forth his rea-
sons for Withholding his signature
from the bills reached the mayors Of
nee yesterday afternoon. II is as fol-
lows:
state of California. Executive office
Sacramento. April p 1902
Hon. Edward r. Taylor. San francisco. Cal
My Dear Mayor Your letter Of April p has
heen duly received have just signed the bin
p authorizing the formation of munieinas water
district This bin gives the district when
formed the right cendemn plants owned by
existing companies. ana / understand from the
thst that was rbe important bil and the one
which would have 10 be followed 10 bringing in
wafer FROM the mountains and supplying the
I'eople around the bay with, this water for DO
mcsfic PURPOSES
There are two other bills pending in the
office which do mote believe I will sign: first
because J have signed the Dn providing for the
nirnciQal district; second. because J do mot
think there is any further law necessary to
enable the city of San Francisco. If IL 50 de-
sres- 70 condemn the property nov owned by the
Spring Valley water company. TIE charter OF
san Francisco gives II the right to purchase
1he plsnt and sTstem u any water company
thar can not do So gives II tie. Fight U bring
coDdemnation proceedings.
RIGHT TO CONDEMN
The code Of civil procedure provides that prop
erfg already dedicated public can he con
demned FOR more necessary public use Under
inc decisions Of ibis country . municipality has
the right 10 condemn water system which is
supplying the Inhabitants q the municipality
city FOR domestic purposes. shcs Law helding
it 10 BE- greater and m0re necessary use for
tho municipality itself. 70 furnish its ovsl in
habitsnfs with water. than FOR private cor
p0rafion TO furnish The wster for gain.
call yO1r attention TO two eases which seem
BROOKLYN 143 X. Y. 6i9.s Brady vs. Atlantic
citr . X J. Equity $40 and Lewis . on
en- neDt domain. section 2T2-256.
In my judgment this makes II unnecessary TO
: IN assembly bill l252.. There are a crest many
OBJECTIONS to assembly bll 1852 from sl over the
state
Subdivision 3 * sectisn l2sl Of atlle rode ot
cITil procedure. proposed 10 be amended in
assembly biz 1852. provides that property
owned br any person hrm or corporation mag
ile taken by municipal or other put6fc corpora
fion FOR the purpose Il supplying water TO such
corporation or 10 the Inhabitants thereof. and
such use By any municipal pVhlie corporation
shall be hello n be = more necessary tfse fhaR
by 3 person. frn private corporation.
As already pHnted out fhis can already be
done under the existing law in my J1egnent
The bill also goes 10 SAY .. that one municis
sssty shall NOT deprive another municipality of
water siresdy IN use nor shall. an irrigation dis
trict deprive another locality 81 water already
in use
OBJECTIONS ARE MADE
TO This last proviso a great many objections
have been made and the argument has alrea1s
been mace that This section VIII be. rendered
unconstitutional By this amendment becauee the
legislature undertakes 70 declare what is ifore
lecesssry public use, where PROPERTY IS being
used fof the identical puEpose. and this q3ess
tion is 2 judicial question and should be de-
ciGed bg tie cougt. j..
Z am not very much impressed with tals srgn-
ment myself, but IL is we'll worthy Of considera-