Ballard Wins a Round in Its Water War—But the Fight Isn't Over

The West Coast Improvement Company and the city council of Ballard won a victory in the superior court yesterday when Judge Langley refused a permanent injunction enjoining the council from spending $4,500 of the $43,000 recently voted for new pipe and other material which was to form part of the city's water plant.

The case had been pending several weeks, and a large number of Ballard residents filled Judge Langley's court while the hearing was in progress. The plaintiff, Inspector Shields, claimed the council proposed to purchase the plant of the West Coast Improvement Company for use in the city's new water system when in truth it was unfit for the purpose, having been in use for a long time. The city council maintained that the pipe was worth all the city would pay for it, and that in making the purchase the city would do away with a serious competitor.

When the case first came to Judge Langley's attention he granted a temporary injunction and fixed yesterday for hearing the facts and deciding whether to make it permanent. At 2 o'clock the case was taken up. Counsel Donworth represented the city council.

Mr. Donworth contended that the council had the right under the law to use its discretion in the matter of giving the town of Ballard a water plant, so long as it adhered to the plan as mapped out in the ordinance. There was no evidence before the court—not even a suggestion—that the council was committing fraud, or, in fact, that it did not desire to advance the interests of the city. The council, Mr. Donworth contended, had shown by the affidavit of P. R. Thomson, city engineer of Seattle, and other authorities that the pipe involved was of the best quality in the world and that its condition was first class instead of being of poor quality and in second or third condition, as alleged by persons who subscribed to affidavits obtained by Shields.

Mr. Donworth said he believed it would be a great hardship to the city, and an injustice, for the court to issue a permanent injunction restraining Ballard from making the purchase when for $4,500 a competitor could be done away with, and a plant secured every inch of pipe of which could be used in the construction of the new plant.

Shields' counsel said he believed it was not the city of Ballard which was fighting the injunction case, but the West Coast Improvement Company, which was making every effort to get rid of its plant, well knowing that if it did not sell now the plant would remain on its hands for a long time. If Ballard erected a plant of its own and furnished the people with water, the improvement company would not be in a position to make its plant profitable as at present. The city council proposed to spend $4,500 for pipe which was not worth more than $2,900 all told. The 5,250 feet of four-inch pipe proposed to be purchased could be secured new today for 20 cents a foot, or $1,050.

Judge Langley, in deciding the case, said that while it was true some publications had been made as to the kind and style of the plant proposed, he did not require them, and though they were before the people they were not binding upon the council as against the exercise of its discretion. When the case came before him it appeared from affidavits submitted for the plaintiff that the purchase was for the sole purpose of getting rid of a competitor and that it would be of no material advantage to the city's water plant. If that were true, the court said, he thought an injunction should stand against the city council, but the counter-affidavits of the defendant showed to the contrary. True, there was a conflict of testimony on this point, but there was evidence before the court that the pipe proposed to be purchased would be an advantage to the new plant. It could be used in the new system, and the purchase would mean more than getting rid of a competitor.

The court denied the motion for a permanent injunction. The plaintiff gave notice of appeal, and this afternoon Judge Langley will fix the amount of the appeal bond. A question will likely arise as to whether the court should grant a supersedeas bond, which would enforce the temporary injunction until the supreme court passed upon the case. The defendants will insist upon an appeal bond.