Arizona republican., 1910-07-10
PHOENIX, ARIZONA, JULY 10, 1910.
The Sewer Franchise.

me sewer Franchise.
 In our columns of this morning is printed a very intelligent and instruc- tive letter on the question of the sewer franchise. It is from a citizen who has had especially good oppor- tunities to become familiar with every phase of the subject.
 The writer of the letter states his surprise that The Republican, in view of the fact that it was one of the first journals in Phoenix to advocate and urge the people, in a most intel ligent manner, to construct a sewer system for the whole city, regardless of the present limited system now in operation" saw fit to publish the news that the validity of the bond issue would be attacked by the own CTS of the present system. Our cor respondent, like many other people, fails to discriminate between the opin- ions Of a paper, as set forth in it's editorial columns, and the news of the day as printed in the news columns. Our reporters never Intentionally de- part from the rule of the manage ment which requires them to report the news, whatever it may be. with out bias or prejudice, and without coloring it It was an important thing for the public to know that the sewer company proposes to ques- tion the validity of our sewer bond issue.
 We have had no occasion from any additional information on the ques- tion,. to change the opinion frequently expressed in these columns that the city of Phoenix is clearly within its legal rights in constructing a sewer system of its own notwithstanding the existence of a franchise to the sewer company. As our correspon- dent clearly points out. our own su- preme court has in fact settled the question. In the case of the Phoenix Water Company vs. the City of Phoe- nix, in which the plaintiff sought to prevent the city from owning a water system while the franchise of the plaintiff was in existence, the Ari- zona supreme court held:
 There cannot be any implied con- tract in the grant of franchise by municipality that it will do nothing to impair or destroy the value thereof, or that it will not enter into com petition with the grantee. Such a restraint can be imposed only by ex- press provision. It would be a work of supererogation to reiterate the req sons. founded on public policy, which have led courts to lay down these principles"
 In other words. so thoroughly estab- lished did the supreme court of Ari- zona find this principle-the principle that implied restrictions cannot be read into the franchise, and that the city is confronted by no restrictions unless they are stated in the fran chise-that it was not considered worth while to "reiterate the reasons" which have led the courts of last re- sort to rule so uniformly on the aues- tion.
 Our news story the other day re- lated that the owners of the sewer plant are relying upon the famous walla Walla decision. In that case, as our correspondent makes clear, the city of Walla Walla did stipulate fin the franchise which it afterward undertook to ignore. that it would not erect water works of its own during the life of the franchise to the water company. And yet, not withstanding this stipulation, the courts held that the city was em- powered to go ahead and construct a water system of Its own, but 1t must settle the question of damages with the owner of the franchise. In the case of the Phoenix franchise to a sewer company, there is no stip- uIation that the city will refrain from constructing a sewer system Of its own. And there being no con- tract to that effect, no implied agree ment can be read into the franchise.
 The owners of the private sewer system are at liberty to continue in business under their franchise Meanwhile, we do not apprehend that the city will encounter any serious difficulty in selling its bonds and proceeding with the construction Of our much needed sewer system.