The San Francisco call., 1909-10-29
EXPOSES FALLACY
OF FROOT'SCAARGES
City Attorney Files Answer in
Hetch HetChy Suit Review
ing Allegations
Shows Bonded Indebtedness Is
Overestimated and That City
Owns Most of Valley

City Attorney Percy V. Long in fling
the cfty's answer in the Hetch Hetchy
bond issue proceedings brought by
Henry toot to restrain the board of
supervisors from disposing of the $780,
600 authorized seized the opportunity
number of allegations made by Roots
attorneys in seeking to block the mu-
nicipality. Building upon Judge Sea-
wallis decision that the case should go
forward on its merits, some of the
newspapers seeking to do Spring Val
leys bidding in opposing the entire
project. boldly proclaimed his overrul-
ing of the demurrer as a crushing de-
feat to the city.
To answer this gross misstatement
Long set forth the facts yesterday. He
said in part:
Judge seawall. on June 2s Of this year: posi-
board of supervisors leading M to the Issuance
of these bonds were regular and the bonds, when
sold and delivered, would be binding and valid
obligation the city and county of San Fran
CISCO There nothing uncertain about his
decision. but the contrary, il clear and
unmista kable. This decision of Judge Seawell
upon the application of Root for an in
junction restraining the sale of these bonds,
which injunction ne denied. In passing upon
the demurrer of the city and county Judge Sea j.
well held that as the complaint of Root ex-
ceedingly voluminous and contained many allega-
tlons OF 1aet that might or might nor ne ma ma.
upon these allegations
Roots complaint was an attempt TO shoot ar
every possible act which might be contemplated
by the board of supervisors in connection with
the issuance Of these water bonds and the ex-
penditqre OF the proceeds, and this offce does not
feel that the citys position has been at all
jeOpardized by the ruling of the superior court,
hut. on the contrary. l believe that the city,
by such ruling. has been placed in very strong
position.
After the completion of the proceedings the
entire record was sent 10 Dillon & Hubbard OF
New York. who are recognized throughout the
world the best legal experts on bond pro-
ceedings and whose opinion upon the validity of
the large financial concerns of the country. and
these attorneys approved these proceedings in
toto,
The answer puts in issue the good faith of the
plaintiff and alleges that the proceeding 1s not
the city TO determine the validity of the bonds,
but is prosecuted at the instance of the Spring
Valley water company solely for the purpose of
delaying the city in the acquisition OF a munich
pal water supply.
upon which most stress laid by plaintif In
the oral argument is that plans and esti-
mates of cost were submitted covering the ac-
auistion of the sources Of water supply and
lands alone. DuI tnat Ine only plans Willcn were
submitted covered the entire project. This is
specifically denied in the answer. and the full
text of the plans and estimates of the city
engineer covering the 100000 bond issue is set
forth.
Another allegation of the complaint which is
denied by the answer is that the offers of Way
mire and others TO sell called public utilities
TO the city were not considered by the board The
answer sets mp that these offers were all consid-
cred but rejected because Inadequate and be-
cause they were merely offers to sell sources OF
water which were undeveloped and impraotieable.
1t is denied that the city owns no rights in
the Hetch Hetchy valley and that the reservoir
TO be constructed there will be on government
land only. and it is shown that the great ma
iority Of the acreage in the Hetch Hetchy val
ley is owned in fee simple by the city and
county.
The complaint alleges that the existing bonded
Indebtedness of the city is S25 900. 600 and that
this added to the S43, 900. 900 proposed for the
Hetch Hetchy project would exceed the 15s per
cent limit fixed bv the charter. While this al
legation stands admitted ii would he sufficient
ground for an Injunction to restrain the issuance
of the bonds. The answer. however. denies this
ALLEGATION and shows that the present existing
bonded indebtedness is but S1l 110. 600 and that
this. added to the proposed Indebtedness. totals
hut little S54 0o0. 900. 100000 600 less
than the limit.