OCR Interpretation


The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, April 14, 1896, Image 3

Image and text provided by University of California, Riverside; Riverside, CA

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85042461/1896-04-14/ed-1/seq-3/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for 3

WHY THE BONDS ARE INVALID
FULL TEXT OP THE SUPREME COURT DE
CISION ON REFUNDING BONDS
Tkey are Declared to Be Invalid Because tha
Principal and Interest ara risde Payable
Outilda ot tha State - *luch Discussion
Among Attorneys Over the Opinion
Tho opinion of. tho supreme, court
knocking out the refunding bonds was
received at tho office of tho Merk in this
city yesterday for filing. The opinion
Is written by Justice Van Fleet, con
curred in by Justices McFarland, Gar
outte, Semple and Ilenshaw. Justice
Harrison also flics a concurring opin
ion. Chief Justice Beatty apparently
took no part in the decision.
When it became known that the de
cision had arrived a number of attor
neys called at tho ofllce to read it. After
a careful perusal they seemed to be of
the opinion that, under the decision,
almost all the bond Issues of not only
l.os Angeles, but other California cities,
were invalid, for the reason that the
bonds and interest coupons are made
payable outside of the state. Many at
torneys flatly stated that they did not
understand the opinion at all; that a
point had been raised that had been
passed by all the leading authorities
of the United States, the effect of which
would be simply to stop the issuance of
bonds. One attorney stated that, un
der the decision, a municipality might
issue all the bonds it wished, but that
they could not be sold, as they could hot
be taken out of the treasury vaults.
The decision has certainly created
more discussion than any other ever
handed down by the Bupreme court, af
fecting this city, and its bond issues,
and in view of its importance it is given
in full, that attorneys generally and cit
izens may read it, and figure out the
logic from'their respective standpoints.
There is little doubt but that Immedi
ate steps will be taken to secure a re
hearing. Following is the opinion;
THE OPINION.
This is an original application to this
court for a writ of mandate to require
defendant.the president of the coun
cil of the city of LosAngcles.to sign cer
tain bonds alleged to have been au
thorized by the said council and the
voters ot said city. The defendant de
murs to the petition on the grounds
that the acts of the legislature under
which tho bonds are attempted to bo
issued are unconstitutional, that ihe
same havo been repealed, and that the
proceedings prescribed by law for the
issuance of the bonds have not been
taken by the council.
The case has not been as fully argued
as Its Importance requires, and some
points, absolutely Indispensable to a
decision, have not been at all
referred to by counsel. This la
especially to be regretted, as
the questions involved are of great
public importance, which we ought not
to be asked to examine without tite full
est assistance from counsel. We have,
nevertheless, given the matter careful
consideration ami arc of opinion that
the demurrer must be sustained.
The facts alleged in the petition as
amended ate, in substance, those:
On February 26, 1866, tho city of I,os
Angeles had outstanding certain bond
ed indebtedness amounting to $396,000,
of which $76,000 would become due Au
gust 1. lS9r>, and the remainder was pay
able at any time at the option of tbe
city. It docs not distinctly appear
when any of these bonds M ere issued,
nor when any of the Indebtedness there
by represented was Incurred. No sink
ing or other fund sufficient to pay the
bonds have been provided, and the
amount necessary to pay or refund
them is too large to be paid from the
ordinary annual income or revenue of
the city, the total indebtedness of the
city is less than $2,000,000.
On February 26. 1895, the city coun
cil adopted an ordinance calling an
election of the qualified voters of the
city, to be held on the day therein
named, at which was to be submitted
the question whether or not refunding
bonds to tho amount of $396,000 should
be issued. The ordinance provided
that in case two-thirds of the qualified
electors voting should vote in favor of
the issuing of said bonds, tho same
should be Issued. Tho bonds were to
be serial in character, one-fortieth of
Ihe whole amount to be paid each year,
bearing interest at four and one-half
per cent per annum (which was less
than the rate borne by the outstanding
bonds) and payable at the Chemical
National bank in the city of New York.
A sinking fund was. by the terms of
the ordinance, provided for the pay
ment of the principal and interest. The
ordinance prescribed the manner of
conducting the election and named the
voting precinct, polling places and of
ficers of election. It concluded as fol
lows: "The city clerk shall certify to
the passage of this ordinance and cause
the same to be published for ten days
in the Los Angeles Kvenlng Express,
and thereupon and thereafter it shall
take effect and be in force." The ordi
nance was accordingly published for
ten days but, as the day fixed for the
election was only sixteen days from the
approval of the ordinance, the last
publication was less than ten days be
fore the election.
The election was hold and much more
than two-thirds of the qualified elec
tors voting thereat voted in favor of
issuing the proposed bonds. Thereupon
a further ordinance was adopted direct
ing the issue of the bonds and requir
ing tho same to be signed by the presi
dent of the city council, who Is defend
ant here. The defendant refused to sign
the bonds.
Tt is further alleged that none of tho
holders of tho outstanding; bonds hay
refused to exchange the bonds held b\
ihein. nor havo any of them deposited
any bonds with any depository for re
demption; and the city has made no ef
fort to exchange the proposed refunding
bonds for the outstanding bonds.
Assuming an election by tho voters to
he necessary, the defendent contends
that the ten days' notice of the election
was not given as required by law. We
do not think this objection well taken.
The ordinance was. in terms, a notice of
the election, containing everything ne. -
essary for such notice. The fact that it
was to "lake effect and be in force" only
at the expiration of the ten days' pub'
i ltd not lessen its effect aa. 8,110
--tice. The manifest intention of the coun
cil was that the election should take
place on the day named; and the lan
guage referred to, though not aptly
chosen for the purpose, does not ob
scure that Intention. It Is sufficient"
that notice was given, and that at ths
time appointed for the election there
was an ordinance in force authorizing
it.
But the really serious questions to be
determined are as to what statute gov
erns the case and as to the effect of the
provisions of tho constitution on the
subject.
The llrst legislation on the subject is
contained in sections 4443 to 4449 of the
Political Code, enacted ln ISSO, and
amended in 1881. Those sections au
thorized "the board of trustees or mu
nicipal council of any city having an
outstanding indebtedness on the first
day of January, 1880, evidenced by bonds
or warrants thereof," to fund or re
fund the same by a two-thirds vote of
the members of such board or council,
the effect of these sections has not
been discussed by counsel, it being, ap
parently, assumed on both sides that
under the-deciSlon in ex parte Simpson.
■ I Sf?" i 2, - tneße sections are not ap
plicable to cities organised before the
adoption of the code. But we think
that the rule laid down In that case does
not apply to these sections, and that
they are applicable to all cities It is
true that they ate a part of title 3 ot
part 4 of the Political Code, and that it
was held In that case that none of the
sections of the title were applicable to
any existing city. But the sections now
!n question were added to the code long
after that decision; and lt is manifest,
lor their terms, that they were Intended
to apply ln all cities, without exception.
The officers therein mentioned are giv
en names not corresponding to those
used in the "system or plan under
which cities may," under the preceding
section, "be organised and governed."
They are designated by general terms,
studiously chosen so as to include cities
of diverse forms of government, and
organized In a manner different from
that provided for in the preceding sec
tions of the title. The language so used
unmistakably negatives any Intention
to confine the operation of those sec
tions to cities organized under the
code.
But, beyond this, these sections can
have no effect whatever,unless they ap
ply to cities formed before the adoption
of the code. These provisions relate
only to cities having an outstanding In
debtedness on January 1, 1880. We are
bound to take Judicial notice of the fact
that no city was ever organized under
the code; und, as no such organization
could take place except by act of the
legislature (sec. 4356) we must presume
that the legislature was aware, when It
enacted the sections in question, that
no such organization had been had. We
cannot suppose that the legislature in
tended to pass an act which never could
have any effect whatever; and we must
therefore hold that these sections ap
ply to all cities, without exception.
The argument of council as to certain
other statutes (to be presently re
ferred to) raises the question
whether these sections are not
In conflict with section IS
of article XI of the constitution,
which forbids any city to "incur any
indebtedness or liability in any man
ner or for any purpose, exceeding In
any year the income and revenue
provided for it for such year, without
the assent of two-thirds of the quali
fied electors thereof voting at an elec
tion to be held for that purpose." But
we do not think that there is any such
conflict It is true that the sections in
question do not provide for obtaining
the assent of the voters, but no such as
sent was necessary. The only Indebt
edness authorized by these provisions
lo be funded or refunded is such us
existed prior to the time when the con
stitutional provision in the ques
tion took effect; merely to
fund or refund an existing
debt Is not to "Incur an indebtedness
or liability." A bond is not an indebted
ness or liability—it is only the evidence
or representative of an indebtedness;
and a mere change In tho form of tho
evidence of indebtedness is not the cre
ation of a new indebtedness within
the meaning of the constitution. (Opin
ion of Judges, SI Me., 602; Hotchkisa
Vs. Martin, 12 Mott, 218; Comrs. VS.
Comrs., 2« Kans., 181, 201; Poughkeop
sio vs. Quintard, 66 Hun., la.) The
case of Doon township vs. Cumins, 112
TJ. S., 366, appears to be opposed to this
view; but we arc unable to assent to
the reasoning of the court In that case,
and think that the correct rule is stated
in the dissenting opinion. Moreover,
the state had no more power, by
adopting a constitution, to Impair the
obligation of the contracts by which
cities had previously incurred indebt
edness, than it had to impair it by it
mere statute. It is true that to take
away a (remedy previously allowed
• locs not always Impair the obligation
of the contract. Hut a reasonably ef
ficient remedy must be left; and in a
majority of cases the only way iv
which municipalities can pay their
debts Is by issuing funded bonds.
Even then, if the state had power to
forbid the funding of prior indebted
ness, except upon now and perhaps
impossible conditions (a concession
which we are not prepared to make),
it certalnl" will not bo presumed. In
absence of .i .v aud explicit declara
tion to thai >. -ft, that the tranters
of our state constitution intended such
a result. The clause in question does
not necessarily require such an inter
pretation; and we are of the opinion
that it docs not apply to the funding
of ana then existing lndeh:e.i.io:s.
It follows that, as to any indebted
ness of the i Ity of l.os Angeles outstand
ing on the Ist day of January, 1880, sec
tions 4440 I i 4449 Of the political code
provides thi method* to be pursued In
funding Of refunding the same. The pe
tition In the pr -nt case, however, does
not alien-- thai .ny of the indebtedness
In questfon was outstanding on that day
and we cannot presume in favor of tho
pleader that such was the fact. It is
therefore n ici BSafy to inquire whether
the bonds ln iitestlon are authorized by
any other sic t ite.
On March 15 1883, an act was passed
(Stats, of 1882, p. 370) authorizing the
governing body of every municipal cor
poration, other than cities of the lirst
class, to fund or refund any Indebted
ness of the .orporation by a vote of
four fifths of their number. That act
authorised the Issue of bonds to be ex
changed fol any existing indebtedness
or to bi sol i for money to be applied
to the payment of such indebtedness.
It is tout- tided that this act violates
tho provisions of the constitution
«gains' special legislation. But there
can be no question that the act classi
fying municipal corporations is consti
tutional (Prltchett vs. Stanislaus coun
ty. 7.: I in., 110), and that In matters per
taining to municipal organization the
1 iglslatun may make different regula
tions tor i he different classes so createC.
(Pasadena vs. Simpson, 81 Cal., 249.)
The subject matter of the act in ques
tion—the funding of municipal indebt
edness—is "peculiarly a matter pertain
ing to municipal organizations, and still
more peculiarly a matter as to which
cities of largo population require a dif
ferent provision from that suitable to
i ill.- or towns of small population."
'i he act Is. therefore, not obnoxious to
that objection.
It Is also contended that the act is
unci institutional In failing to provide for
submitting to the voters the question
Whether tho bonds shall be issued. It
is I r-ii,; that, as to any new indebtedness
Incurred after January 1, 1880, such a
submission must be had; but It docs
not necessarily follow that any act of
the legislature on that subject must
contain that requirement. It is. we
think, sufficient that, by any legisla
tion, authority is given to the municipal
go> eminent to call such an election, and
that the election is actually called and
held. Such authority Is expressly
given by sections 40. 107, l!i8, 19!) and 200
of the charter of l.os Angeles Stats, of
ISS9, p. 455), and, as we have seen, a
\ Slid election was actually called and
1.- 'd ln this case. Indeed, It is probable
that the constitutional provision re
quiring such election is, of Itself, sulli
- lent authority to the municipality for
holding it, at least when road in con
nection with such an act as the one of
1883 herein questioned.
On March 1, 1893. an act was passed
(Stats, of 1893. p. 59) amending the act
ot ISB3. By this amendment a submis
sion to the voters was required in all
cases, one-fortieth instead of one
twentieth) of the principal was re
quired to be paid each year, and author
ity was given to make the bonds pay
J GOTTOLBNE
6t- Looia. Chl«ro*Montreal, Saa
ITancuwo, Portland, OMgoe,
LOS ANGELES HERALD: TUESDAY MORNING* APRIL 14, 1996.
able either at the office of the city treas
urer or at a bank In San Francisco, New
York, Boston or Chicago.
It is contended that this act, also, is
invalid, as special legislation; but what
we have said as w the act ot 1883 on
this question applies equally to this
act. It also claimed that the legis
lature could not authorize a debt paya
ble in twenty years to be refunded in
to a debt payable in forty years; but
we fail to discover any force in this con
tention, and no reason is suggested or
authority referred to supporting it.
It is also contended that the provi
sion authorizing payment of the bonds
at a place other than the city treasury,
and especially out of the state, Is in con
travention of sections 13 and 16 of article
XI of the constitution, and therefore in
valid. This provision, It Is true. Is sev
erable, and its invalidity would not af
fect tho rest of the act. But as the bonds
here in question arc made payable at
the Chemical National bank ln New
York city, and as the ordinance author
izing them prov ides that they shall be so
payable, it Is necessary to examine that
objection.
The sections of the constitution re
ferred to were construed In Yarnell vs.
Los Angeles (87 Cal., 603), and it was
there held that the provisions in the
charter of that city authorizing the
council to appoint a bank ln that city
as a depository of the public funds was
a violation of those sections and wholly
invalid. We are unable to distinguish
that case from the present one, and we
think the reasoning there employed ap
plies with at least equal force to this
case. If the principal and interest of
these bonds is to b.e paid at a bank in the
city of New York, that thing can be ac
complished In only one of two .ways:
Either the city treasurer must go in per
son to New York, carrying the money
with him, and there pay it out, or he
must remit the money by express, draft
or some other mode to that bank and au
thorize that bank to make the payment
There is certainly no law which author
izes the city treasurer to go to New-
York (in the present case semi-annual
ly), and take with him the public mon
eys; and, In the absence of such law. ho
certainly has no such power. Even It It
be conceded (which is not clear) that the
lglslature is competent to authorize an
officer to perform any part of his du
ties without the state, It has not at
tempted to confer any such authority
in this instance; and there is, therefore,
no other alternative than to remit the
money to the bank ln New York, and
make that bank the agent of the city to
pay the bonds and coupons. But this is
precisely what is forbidden by the con
stitution, and Is, as we regard it, a
graver infraction of Us provisions than
that considered in the Yarnell case. We
are therefore of opinion that the bonds
in question, and the ordinance authoriz
ing them, arc clearly invalid, and that
the defendant cannot be required to sign
them.
This conclusion renders It unneces
sary to consider the effect of the amend
ment of 1895 (Stats, of 1895, p. Mil), to
section 1 of the act of 189;!. The ques
tions arising under that, act are import
ant and ha ye not been adequately pre
sented by counsel; and we therefore
leave them for consideration In sonic
case iv which they aro properly in
volved.
The demurrer to the petition is. for the
reasons suggested, sustained, and the
writ dismissed. VAN FLEET, J.
We concur: MoFarland, J.; Garouttc,
J.; Temple. J.; Henshaw, J.
Justice Harrison also tiles the fol
lowing concurring opinion:
1 concur in the judgment, and also in
that portion of the opinion of Mr. Jus
tice Van Fleet, in which he discusses
the effect ot the provision in the ordi
nance making the interest upon the
bonds payable nut of the state.
1 am of the opinion, however, that the
recitals In the ordinance of the bonds
which arc to he refunded sufficiently
show that a portion thereof was is
sued prior to the year 1880 and other
portions subsequent to that year. It
is unnecessary, therefore, to determine;
whether Sec. 4445 of the political code
Is still in force, as that section by its
terms authorizes the issue of bonds
for the sole purpose of refunding an
indebtedness which existed on the first
day of January. 1880, while tho bonds
sought to be issued by the proceedings
under consideration are for the purpose
of refunding an indebtedness of which
Washing
windows
/' I 1S anotner one °f the things that
Pearline(- e t^0 t a h p ) does best.
Witli that, the glass is never
C cloudy—is always clear and
I iA\ / bright. Washing it is less
I trouble, of course—but that is
the case with everything that is
\\.v/(Vv\ washed with Pearline.
- jMMJ $£r\ "j And about the sashes and the
' \f | frames; remember that Pearline,
xv ] ien j t ta kes the dirt off, leaves
the paint on. Haven't you noticed that certain imitations are
not so particular about this ? 497
C If you want a sure relief for pains in the back, side, chest, or 3
7 limbs, use an 9
Allcock's Plaster i
/ Bear in Mind—Not one of the host of counterfeits and Imita- \
P tions is as good as the genuine. H
SAVED FROM A LIVING fiRIVE ** CCnnii w * fcrftli ifour testimonials are
TjlBT HJUIIinU niiWTC. JWnllllll not true 3JCO cured by TaOlllxlrof
JB efß asm Vista last year, of Lost Manhood,
MISS*. Jan Ni S n "7 Emissions, and all Seminal weakness of
WfMf !BM WVW* IV WfM any natuic arising from disease, over-indulgence
L?l IfmV V tm or abuse of any kind of either sex. Have the Drug-
HMNfvVV CKvif artatwa M glat show you "testimonials or address with stamp
I-ST■MlliS W and we will send them. As«f»JUiir of Tautt, taisaj
hi W P" bottle, ti for 85. Sold under a guaran-
iHlnsa. tee to cure or money refunded Prepared only by
atuaM a«m»i sum? 08- tan bun, «toS
ior sale by THOMAS' Ji KnL.l.'-KiToN. Corner Tempi* and Spring streets.
Ever Troubled With Your Eyes
Ever tried as? Wo h»?« fine '. jlsmm to
thousands to their entire tftttataotioo.
Whynotgtve us a trial? Wo #!!« satisfy
you. £)'«• tailed frta. I.owaat prices.
A. 0. MARSHUTZ, ScleetmcOetlcUe
MS B. fftaf strast. opp. Suasion meek,
Atahltahee here ate* years.
(ft- tees fat Ike orewn ea the Wlstsa,
Al. T. rtartln
531-533 S. Spring
Hollies furnished complete. A
full Una ot Hmmpholrt tioods,
rnrni'ts, Matting snn stovpa,
tiftk Extension Tnliles and
t halr«. Op«n Monday and Sat
urday «**ninga.
the greater portion did not exist at that
date.
The act of 1883, as amended in 1893
(Stats, of 1893, p. 59) and under which
the proceedings were had, was again
amended ln 1895 (Stats, of 1895, p. 203.)
The effect of this amendment was to
deprive the city council ot all power
to issue refunding bonds, except in ac
cordance with its terms; and the lat
ter act is the sole authority by which
to determine the power of a municipal
ity to Issue any refunding bonds, as
well as the mode by which that pow
er is to be exercised. This act was
adopted March 27, 1895, and took effect
immediately, and although the elec
tion by the voters of Eos Angeles was
held March 21. 1893. the vote was not
canvassed until April Ist, and the or
dinance for the issue of the bonds was
not adopted until April Bth. As no
contract had been entered into, and no
vested right had accrued by reason of
the steps that had been taken for the
issuance of these bonds, the effect of
the act of 1895 was to repeal all of tho
provisions for their issuance that were
not preserved in the amended act, and
to render nugatory all the steps that
had been taken by virtue of those pro
visions. (Lamb v. Bchottler, 54 Cal.,
319.) Under the act as thus amended
no election by the voters is required at
a preliminary step, but the governing
body of the city is empowered to refund
the outstanding indebtedness and issue
bonds therefor "by a vote of four-fifths
of its members." The validity of the
election is. therefore, not involved, and
•as the act conferred no authority to
sell the bonds when issued, except in
special instances, there can be no addi
tional liability created by the mere is
suance of the bonds.
To entitle the petitioner lo a writ of
mandate against the respondent it was
necessary to set forth ln its petition
all the facts which rendered it his duty
to sign the bonds. This duty did not
exist unless the ordinance for their is
suance had been adopted by a vote of
four-fifths of the members of the city
council, arid the petition should have
so stated. As the adoption of an ordi
nance for the issuance of bonds would
not give any validity to the bonds or
authorize their issuance, unless the or
dinance was adopted by the requisite
vote, the mere averment that the city
council "adopted an ordinance provid
ing for the issuance of said bonds" does
not sufficiently show that tho ordi
nance was passed in accordance with
the requirements of the statute, or that
it was incumbent upon the respondent
to sign the same,
HARRISON, J.
STRUCK BV*XCAR
Another Old flan Fatally Injured by the Dead
ly Trolly
Arthur B. Bradford, a carpenter, 65 years
of age, was fatally injured by an elestric
car on Main street, near the Pico house, at
6:46 yesterday morning. Bradford is a
single man, ran a carpenter shop next to
the engine house on Main street, near
where lie was stricken down, and has no
relatives living so far as can be ascertained.
Me was crossing the street when car No.
157, of the Downey avenue line, sttu:k
him and knocked him violently to the
pavement, his head striking the cobble
stones with fearful force. He was picked
up for dead and conveyed to the receiving
hospital, where Ors. Bryant and A ins
worth attended him. It was found that a
fracture of the skull had been sustained
above and back of the right eye, besides
minor cuts and bruises.
Bradford's chances of life are small, aa
he is vomiting blood and is in a state of
semiconsciousness. It is claimed by the
inotorneer that Bradford, in endeavoring
to avoid two bicyclists, jumped directly iv
front of his car and was struck,
William Payne of 412 North Main s'reet
says that Bradford is 67 years old and
formerly lived in Covington, Ky.. which
place be left in 1852. He was a miner in
(Sonoma county for some years. A nephew
resides in the village of Chicago, nine miles
from Fresno, this state. His name is Jean
Bradford. Another nephew, George Par
sons, resides in Sonora. Bradford is a
member of the Carpenter's union and
formerly kept a saloon in Tuttletown. At
a late hour last night he was still uncon
scious and his death was momentarily ex
pected.
Solomon Isaacs was arrested last even
ing in Chinatown for peddling without a
license. He is a Hebrew notion dealer.
Not having bail spent the night in a cell.
J. M. Orlfllth. Pres. John T. Griffith. V.-»ra*
F. T. Griffith, Secretary and Treasurer.
Geo. R. Waitos, Supt. of Mill.
J. M. GRIFFITH COMPANY.
Lumber Dealers,
And .r.anufacturcrs ot
mm in work oi Evety Description.
Doom, Windowa, winds and Stairs.
MA M. ALAMEDA ST.. Loa Await*. OsJk
J A. FAIRCHILD
Contractor In Asphalt Work
Uoout :il Bryson Block
I use ouly the Alustrax brands of Asphalt,
winch aie the purest, and higheu grades
known and are guarantaod free from coal tar
or petroleum residuum.
BAKER IRONWORKS
eso to eeo bgxxa vista st.,
Mat KNOSUB3, - OXI.I*>0(ll«ta|
AdleialM jj f. aisaaM MUt
WENDELL EASTON/ President GEORGE EASTON. Vice-President
GEORGE D. FASTON. Secretary ANGLO-CALIFORNIA BANK OJf), TrtMWHr
under instructions from the owner, _ to dose an estate, we offer for sale at a bargain
one of the finest and best paying hotel properties in the world, the famous
Arlington Hole]
The Arlington is probably the most widely known hotel in the West, and its popularity is constantly
increasing. Besides being unquestionably the leading hotel in Santa Barbara, it is the permanent tourist
resort of California. The property offered includes, with buildings, business, good will, furniture and full mod
ern hotel equipment, an entire block of land, with tine lawns, siiade trees, tennis courts, etc., fronting oa
State Street, the principal business thoroughfare of Santa Barbara. The early completion of the direct coast
line of the Southern facific Railroad Company to San Francisco only makes more certain the absolute and solid
value of Santa Barbara realty, and the fast growth of the city speaks for itself and needs no mention here.
For partial lars as to price and terms apply to or address
/ * *
Easton, Eldridge & Co.
121 South Broadway, Los Angeles
WENDELL EASTON, President. GEORGE EASTON, Vice-President
GEORGE D. EASTON, Secretary- ANGLO-CALIFORNIA BANK fL<t) Treasurer.
.... Under instructions from the owners we offer for sale ....
1 OOO—SELECTED ACRES—I 000
.... of the world-famed . . . .
Chino Ranch
In 10, 20, and 40-Acre Tracts and Upward— The Chino Ranch has a national as well as a state reputation as a
principality unsurpassed for fertility. The direct results obtained from cultivation of the sugar beet alone place a
permanent and solid value on the land. Remember the beet crop takes but five months' time from planting to
harvest, and the immense return from this great product is well known. A ready market is right at hand and
there can be no failure in prices. The land we offer, however, is equally suited to the growth of deciduous and
citrus fruits, and investigation can but satisfy you that this acreage is unquestionably the finest in all of this
great state of California. Subdivisions of size to suit purchasers are offered at prices that guarantee an im
mediate profit upon investment, and notwithstanding this fact, the terms of payment are absolutely easy,
making a purchase possible and within the reach of all who are prepared, in working, to do the land justice.
For full particulars, apply to or address,
Easton, Eldridge & Co.,
121 SOUTH BROADWAY or CHINO RANCH CO., CHINO, CAL.
White Rock Ozonate Lithia Water
The Only Lithia Water that
Five times more Lithia half the price
* Us Equal is Unknown for Rheumatism,
Kidney and Stomach Troubles
*%Gk®rfF Braun A Co.,
l) Wholesale Agents for Southern California
■' I ■ ■■ ■■■-■■■■■■■I'
Wo n*?n<l tlio ?narv»;lfus French
/fcJ IT mkH CALTHOS rrw, and Ft
§ fn linl loan, niiarnnteetlint (jaltboi will
L a*** _ -mm \ STOP ftUrharr" A' I'mlwlotK.
|, ■E'tlff T CtrtlE Ni.rrmitwrrbfH.l arlt-oc« Ie
\ ud BKCTOIK Lent VIfWN
itf '** " W 'Jsatisfif<?.
V *.Mwsit, YON MOHL CO.,
8o!« Ann-inn Aga>nU, t Ihclt.*!., Ohio.
C. F. HEINZEHAN,
Druggist and Chemist
222 N. Main St., Los Angeles
Prescriptions carefully compounded day
ur night.
BREAKFAST INT.OMPLKTC WITHOUT IT
t L? \C A \l\ JOHN M. "ROLLER
1 .|% >La /WI 3 »w..ts««. st»*t
1 % B > / V ■ ICR CREAM ANDSHERBITSASPHCULTT
Prompt deli vt ry to alt parti o! ell*.
s car lor the sale. Toe catalogue *m
hracoa 1H head of heavy draft weighing I'JOO to 1400 pounds; one standard brad trotter, record
2 :' M, beautiful hay. safe lor lady to drive; one large, fine, combination saddla and art?*, rot
cataiogue|and full particulars, call on
E. W. NO YES, Auctioneer and Agent tor Owners.
sis Roouana attest, roar iwsita,
a. a-So raierr* prlcei; must be Mid.
3

xml | txt