The San Francisco call., 1909-06-29
Ruling of the Court

II Is not necessary 10 state the 1acIS
alleged in this case. AS to the OBJ
lection raised by the plaintiff in re-
gard to the action of the board of
supervisors and as to the rights of the
secretary of the interior to grant the
rights to the city:
The first objection as to the popular
vote at the election is that there was
an omission of statement of the
entire bonded indebtedness necessary
to carry out proposition i; that is. the
acquisition of a water supply from the
Hetch Hetchy, Lake Eleanor and the
| Tuolumne river The charter, article
II. section 5. says:
IF, however, the cost of such public
utilities or any of them shall so far
and county in addition to the other
necessary expenses thereof as to rem
Indebtedness therefor the board of
supervisors shall, at any regular meet
Ing held within eight weeks after the
filing of the plans and estimates of
cost thereof, by ordinance, as herein
after in section 6 of this article pro-
yided, call a special election at which
shall be submitted TO the electors a
proposition or propositions for the ac-
quisition of such public utility or
There was here submitted the prop
source TO be Lake Eleanor, Hetch
Hetchy and the Tuolumne river.
Such propositions, continues tne
the bonded indebtdness necessary for
the acquisition of the utility or utih-
ties therein named anu the rate of in
visors shall submit to the electors the
question or questions whether such
bonded Indebtedness shall be incurred
Now. this proposition / does not
state the amount necessary for the
acquisition of the public utility, and
in that connection I may say, however,
conceding. that proposition 1 is insult
f1cient in itself, there is another aspect
in the conditions imposed by the sec
retary of the interior. One of the
conditions was that the city submit
the question to its citizens within two
years. Even if the proposition be not
sufficient in itself, it is ample to COM
ply with the request of the secretary
OF the interior. think-irrespective
of the question whether the submis-
sion was sufficient for the acquisition
of the public utility--I think it suf-
ficient under section Is of article IL
of the charter. This section says:
The supervisors shall have power,
in the name and for the benefit of the
city and county, to acquire by pur-
conditions and limitations in this char
ter and the general laws of the state
prescribed, any lands. situated within
constructing or maintaining canals,
aaueducts, reservoirs, tunnels, fumes,
bitches or pipes for conducting or stor-
ing water for the use Of the city and
county, or the inhabitants thereof
Il think that language broad enough
to include the rights granted by the
secretary of the interior on May IL,
1908. The only conditions and limita-
tions imnosed by the charter are as to
submitting to the people propositions
calling for an indebtedness to exceed
a stated percentage. The section re-
stricting the supervisors to the pur-
chase of land not to exceed $4,000 in
value refers to purchases out of cur
rent revenues.
Now objection is made that this par
ticular proposition 2 does not provide
for the purchase of certain lands and
that it is for certain reasons not in
compliance with the provision of the
charter. Proposition 2, it must be re-
membered, is merely to carry out con-
ditions imposed by the secretary of the
interior. 1t must be remembered that
no money is involved. The government
says, I'VE do not ask for any
money, but to do certain things. You
claim to have options on certain lands,