Year: 1874




The two decisions of the Supreme
Court---one rendered a year or more
ago and the other quite recently--af-
fecting the Spring Valley Water Com
pany, do not appear to us to be so
contradictory rs some of our cotempo-
raries are disposed to regard them.
The two opinions are based on very
different grounds. In the first, the
point determined was whether, in con-


sideration of certain privileges granted
by the city to the company, stated ac-
commo iations could be claimed for
the city, as promised by the company.
In other words, the company agreed
to furnish water for certain purposes
without charge, accepting in payment
therefor the privileges named in the
franchise. The first. opinion was
based on the statement here set forth.
The Court held that the company were
but complying with their contract,
and so long as the city maintained the
corporations right to the exclusive en-
joyment of those privileges, the city
was entitled to the agreed price of
those privileges-which was the free
use of water for certain purposes-and
it was decided that the company could
not collect rent for water so used In
the second decision the Court held
that the company could collect for the
water so furnished by the city, but in
reaching that opinion it lays down q
principle which will prove far more
damaging to the water company of
San Francisco and to all other holders
of special privilege franchises than
they are at present willing to admit.
1t denies the right of the Legislature
to grant special franchises of any kind
whatever. The first decision consid-
cred the conditions and stipula-
tions of a contract, while the second
decision is based on the legality
Of the contract itself In the first
case the Court examined only the
compact between the city and the
company, and held both parties to the
fulhllment OF their promises. In the
second case the Court went farther
back, and finding the contract null,
because unconstitutional, held that
rs the city could not guarantee the
promised reward for free water it must
pay for it in coin. The decision says
in effect to the water company; you
cannot longer enjoy the especial priv
i!eges you have been exercising, and
as the law does not require you to give
something for nothing you may col
lect for your water. 1t does not re-
quire great amount of common
sense and legal knowledge to enable
one to understand how the same
bench could render those two opinions
without thought of contradiction or
qualification. They do not conflict
and we have shown that both are
strictly correct. The right of Legis-
liture to donate gifts at the expense of
the public has always been regarded
as doubtful right. The exercise of
this doubtful right has been so fire.
quent that it has cost the people of
this State millions of dollars. There
seems to be no more reason why
man or company should be given the
exclusive right to sell a town water
or gas than that one man or company
should hold the sole right to supply
town with beef or flour. Such fran
chises always create monopoly and
the Legislature has no right to i'm
pose monopoly on the people. The
decision of the Supreme Conrt is that
the people should not be duped into
making special privilege compacts,
but when they are so duped, the Leg
islature shall not ratify them.