Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1913-02-18


IN detail with this phase OF the mat
tcr later on In this report
secondly, tho pipe leading from
the premises 10 the water main ir|
the private property OF the conaUm-
81, he w required 90 purchase IL and
pay for laying " to the main aud
connections II ~ an elementary
principle 81 law that no person or
corporation can Interfere with pri-
vitte property without due process OF
law and " seems plain that employees
OF the water company who interfere
with the private property of citi-
zen. to-wlt, his water pipe. are ares.
pnssrrs pure and simple and may be-
treated as such, M matter what oh
iect OF such ttespaas.
II appears from the Information 1
have been able 20 gather that the sys.
tenn 81 charges az nt present iB for"
by the water company " almost "
not quite prohihitiye IN the ease 0i
The consumer of moderate means
who desires to cultivate grass. flow
eTs or shrubbcry on his land. and u
seems certain that the nigh water
rate H. responsible In O. large ma ior-
iiy OF Instances for the barren aud
unattractive appearance at the yards
Ia tho city. u II hard ta estimate
the monetary damage resulting from
this condition Of affairs. but u is
undoubtedly q potent factor IN Tetard
INK the growth al the city imposing
o formidable obstacle Go any move
mcnt looking toward the making of
Albuquerque the beautiful and at
tractive city which It's location. eli
mate ana natural advantages would
render an easy task should the water
company see flt 20 make reasonable
terms tor apriuklng lawns.
Even though the water company
should conform IN spirit and letter
to the rates established hy the fran
chise such rates would be- much high
or than those charged iu the ina Jor'
hy 81 other cities according to the
data have been able 10 collect on
the Subject. For instance. In i.N
Angeles thu rate u 10 cents per
thousand gallons uud in san Fran
cisco 20 cents per thousand gallons
From the statement ol fHrts uS
given ahov" II seems clear To ne
that actions would lie against the
water company hy citi2cnH To- com
pei rounding ct amounts paid in ,N-
cess of the rates authorized by the
franchise but there u broader and
more tar.rcaching question involved
Co which ! dcsir. Co 'ull IA" utivu'
ttun oI the MAYOR ana city council
as coming within tho scope OF me In
( QuirN which I have boon directed e"
make.
4 Two principles are clearly es-
tahlish-d by legal authoritis-. First
that the franchise 90 public. utility
corporation is simply contract and
auhicrt Co an the laws governing con
tracts Second. that this franchise
can boz declared forfeited hy proper
judicial procedure for gross misu-"
~ abuse of ~ privileges
A. q" tn first proposition not only
-. A. H.. 49,. ssH.
NoCabl. for sufficient breach of
lts terms 10y either party. bot DO O.. co
contract which viii he construed
most strongly against the person ur
corporation holding H. Tn" suprriu"
court 90 the United states has Uil
down the following rul" for the con.
stru'tion uf franchises OF public
Unity corporations:
"Th" rule oi construction u this
class of cJs"s is that q shalt De- most
b strongly against IA" corporation.
/ Every reasonable doubt Is tn b." l".
solved adversely. NuthiuE iH tu Dol.
taken a. conceded but what is gl,ru
In unmisiHkabic terms or by an i'm.
plicution equally clear. the atnrma-
tive must he shown. Silence b. u'.
saginn ana doubt is fatal tn The
claim. This doctrine Be- vital ga th"
public welfare, u is automatic tu iu"
Jurisprudence Of this court"
u viii be- seen from the above ih"'
public utiuty corporations must 'nu..
pis Go the icttrt with the terms ul
their franchise The courts VIII
read NOTHING into thom for the h"uD-
lit ct the corporations, on the co"-
! trary every doubt must Doc resolved
! adversely to the corporations ana u"
| th interest of the public.
As CO. the second proposition it De-
7 equally we'll SETTLED that th" tf.u.
chlsD uf public utility corporation
Will be- rsNucuhls Zoe misuse uI
abuse. The doctrine - thus lad
down iu Il leading case in which 4"
water company was defendant.
TN policy Of the law 81 O." require
by mandatory process the perform
nncc by public utility corporation "l
their duties to the public, aud O."
withdraw boy judicial proordur" iran
ChiSes that are being abused
This doctrine b. followed in All ih'
leading cases and has brcom" su Vel
settled az 10 be beyond dispute.
/ u seems tn be- very general I'm
preston even among lawyers that
citizens arr practically helpless iu
dealing with the water company Tor
the reason that the company may ar
bitrarily shut of their water supply
This impression De- erroneous ana
arises from lack OF clear under
standing of the legal obligations ass
summed hy the person or corporation
which undertakes 90 perform certain
publ, duties boo question tor Nuluahl"
rights and privileges. The doctrine
on this subject iH thus stated iu %
leading ease.
Where there o. granting and ace
Ceptauro Of public franchise ma
yulylug the perturmau,H Of q certain
service the person uT corporation u'.
C,ptiNg 10 can Dee compelled hN WInr
dumus 90 perform such service.
ShuuE he water company attempt
tu shut uti the water supply ut amy
citizen uu account Of any suit brought
bN said citizen or ON account ui any
disagreement between tn rumpaly
ana thc cIty II can be- speedily and
effectively compelled 10 continue th'
service which be has uErr Il tu per
form ana should the court declare the
cumpnnN's Franchise forfeited l'g.I
means are provided whereby the DIiE
uud the citizens would continue Co %.
supplird with winter until fiuul Hd
iusuuent vus made. Ec-poctiull
submitted JOHN q. LEWIS.
rUy Atluru"s
Cosmos Sss'd early towering Giant
california. Stamm Fruit Co, it3 W
silver
AlaUric" Costello, SIR Thomas IIp-