Page images
PDF
EPUB

Opinion of the Court.

an act approved February 14th, 1885. The preamble recites that “whereas the inhabitants of the municipality known as the Port of Mobile, and the inhabitants of the village of Whistler, in the county of Mobile, are not provided with an adequate supply of water for domestic and municipal purposes; and whereas, it is essential to the public health of the citizens of those towns, and to the protection of their property and the public property therein, against conflagration, that an abundant supply of water should be introduced and furnished to said citizens; and whereas, a company of citizens of said county propose to undertake the duty of furnishing such supply to said towns for the public use and benefit.” By the 6th section of the act that company was charged with the duty of introducing into the Port of Mobile and the village of Whistler, in Mobile County, such supply of pure water as the domestic, sanitary and municipal wants thereof might require ; and for this purpose it was authorized to construct all needed canals and ditches, and, by pipes and aqueducts as might be found best suited for the purpose, to carry into said towns, by such lines or route as might be found best, such water as was needed, from any point in that county within twenty miles of the port or city of Mobile.

The same act provides, among other things : “$ 9. That the said corporation hereby created is hereby invested with all the rights and powers, which by law or contract was vested in the late municipal corporation, known as the mayor, aldermen and common council of the city of Mobile,' by redemption, purchase or otherwise, to acquire from any and all other persons, corporations or associations whatever, any and all property and rights by such person or persons, corporations or associations, held under any former contract or law whatever for the introduction and supply of water into the city of Mobile, or the inhabitants thereof, and for such purpose said Bienville Water Supply Company shall be held and taken to be the assignee of the said mayor, aldermen and common council of the city of Mobile,' and may proceed to assert said rights, and exercise said powers thus assigned, the same as could have been done by the municipal corporation aforesaid,

Opinion of the Court.

and for this purpose the commissioners of Mobile, appointed under and by virtue of 'An act to vacate and annul the charter and dissolve the corporation of the city of Mobile, approved February 11th, 1879, are hereby authorized, on the demand of said corporation, to release to said corporation all the rights of said late city of Mobile in and to such right of redemption, purchase or other acquisitions of such property or rights.

"§ 10. That said Bienville Water Supply Company be, and is hereby, authorized to acquire by contract with any person or persons, corporation, company or association, claiming any right to supply the port or city of Mobile or the inhabitants thereof with water, such right or rights as he or they may have in the premises, and the property owned and used in connection therewith, and pay therefor such amount of money as may be agreed upon, or such amount as may be agreed upon in stock of the said supply company; and in case of failure by contract to obtain such right and property, then said corporation hereby created, may proceed as directed by law, for the condemnation and the taking of private property for public use, to obtain the same for the purpose of the public use and benefit herein declared of furnishing the port of Mobile and the village of Whistler, and the inhabitants thereof, with an adequate supply of water for domestic, sanitary and municipal purposes.

"§ 11. That said corporation shall have and enjoy the exclusive right of conducting and bringing water from any point, other than Three-Mile Creek in the county of Mobile, for the supply of said port of Mobile and village of Whistler, for the period of twenty years from the time when said water shall have been brought within the limits of the port of Mobile, and be ready for distribution and supply to the inhabitants of the port of Mobile, and the houses and dwellings within the limits of said port. And till the municipal authorities of said port and village, if so by law authorized, shall purchase the water works and property of said corporation as hereinafter provided, but said corporation within four years from the passage of this act, must begin its works, and within six years from the date of the passage of this act, must cause

Opinion of the Court.

water to be conducted into the port of Mobile from some stream, point or place as herein before named, and if and when any existing claim to conduct water into Mobile from ThreeMile Creek, or any other point without the limits of said port, has been obtained by this corporation, then said corporation shall have the exclusive right to supply said Port and village and the inhabitants thereof with water for the period and the term aforesaid. But nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit the organization hereafter of any company for the purpose of supplying the city of Mobile or any other place with water which does not interfere with the property rights or rights of obtaining water pertaining to this company.

The plaintiff, alleging in his bill that the Bienville Water Supply Company were engaged in laying down pipes and mains for the avowed purpose of conducting water into Mobile to supply that city and its inhabitants, prays that the defendant may be enjoined from laying pipes in, along or through the streets and alleys of the city for such a purpose, and that it be perpetually enjoined from interfering with the exclusive right and privilege which the plaintiff, representing the estate of Albert Stein, claims of supplying Mobile and its inhabitants with water under the contract of December 26th, 1840, until that city shall redeem and purchase, at their actual value, the water works constructed and maintained by the testator under that contract.

The present case is not controlled by New Orleans Water Works Company v. Rivers, 115 U. S. 674, and St. Tammany Water Works v. New Orleans Water Works, 120 U. S. 64, to which counsel have referred. The first case involved the validity and effect of a contract between the city of New Orleans and the New Orleans Water Company, whereby the former, acting under legislative authority, granted to the latter, for the term of fifty years, the exclusive privilege of supplying that city and its inhabitants “ with water from the Mississippi, or any other stream or river, by mains or conduits, and for erecting and constructing any necessary works or engines or machines for that purpose.” Subsequently, under the sanction of a new state constitution, adopted after that

Opinion of the Court.

contract was made, the city passed an ordinance allowing Rivers or the lessee of the St. Charles Hotel, the right of way and privilege to lay a water pipe from the Mississippi River at any point opposite the head of Common or Gravier streets, through either of those streets, to convey water to that hotel. This court held the grant to Rivers to be inconsistent with the previous one to the Water Works Company, and that the provision in the new constitution of Louisiana and the ordinance under which Rivers proceeded, impaired the obligation of the city's contract with the Water Works Company. It was said: “The right to dig up and use the streets and alleys of New Orleans for the purpose of placing pipes and mains to supply the city and its inhabitants with water is a franchise belonging to the State, which she could grant to such persons or corporations, and upon such terms, as she deemed best for the public interests. And as the object to be attained was a public one, for which the State could make provision by legislative enactment, the grant of the franchise could be accompanied with such exclusive privileges to the grantee, in respect of the subject of the grant, as in the judgment of the legislative department would best promote the public health and the public comfort, or the protection of public and private property. Such was the nature of the plaintiff's grant, which, not being at the time prohibited by the constitution of the State, was a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired by subsequent legislation, or by a change in her organic law ;” the constitutional prohibition upon state laws impairing the obligation of contracts not, however, restricting “the power of the State to protect the public health, the public morals or the public safety, as the one or the other may be involved in the execution of such contract,” because “rights and privileges arising from contracts with a State are subject to regulations for the protection of the public health, the public morals and the public safety, in the same sense as are all contracts and all property, whether owned by natural persons or corporations.”

In St. Tammany Water Works v. New Orleans Water Works, we maintained the contract which the New Orleans Water Works Company had with the city against another corpora

[ocr errors]

Opinion of the Court.

tion that claimed the right, under the general laws of Louisiana -- and was about to take active steps in its enforcementof bringing water into New Orleans by means of pipes, laid in the streets of that city parallel with those constructed by the New Orleans Water Works Company, to convey water from Bogue Falaya River, in the parish of St. Tammany. As the exclusive right of the New Orleans Water Works Company to supply the city of New Orleans and its inhabitants with water was not restricted to water drawn from the Mississippi, but embraced water from “any other stream or river,” the case was held to be controlled by the decision in New Orleans Water Works Company v. Rivers.

The present case is materially different. The exclusive right acquired by Stein, under his contract of 1840, with the city of Mobile, and confirmed by the act of January 7, 1841, of supplying that city and its people with water, by means of a system of public works, did not, in terms or by necessary implication, embrace all streams, or rivers or bodies of water, from which he could supply water for public use in Mobile. While the obtaining of water for that city was undoubtedly contemplated by the legislature when it passed the first act, that of 1820, the thing done to that end was to incorporate certain persons proposing to bring water to the city from Three-Mile Creek or Bayou Chatogue.

And this idea was apparent in the agreement of 1836 with Hitchcock. So, by the agreement with Stein, he, and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, acquired the “sole privilege of supplying the city of Mobile with water from the Three-Mile Creek” for a designated term of years, as well as after the expiration of that term and until he or they should receive from the city the actual value of his water works, determined in the mode prescribed by the contract. The specific power and authority given to Stein and his executors, administrators and assigns, by the city and the State, was “to conduct the water from any part of the Three-Mile Creek, so called, so that the same be good and wholesome.” Why the parties, in making their agreement, specified a particular stream from which Stein was to conduct water into the city of Mobile for public use does

« PreviousContinue »