Show ANSWER 18 MADE TO OGDEN waterworks WATER WORKS COMPANY sets forth the failure of waterworks Water works company to comply with agreements with city from wednesdays standard an answer of ogden city to the ogden waterworks Water works company was filed n the united states circuit court of utah yesterday it Is a lengthy document but tho principal points in the answer of ogden city are defendant has not sufficient information to admit and therefore denies that john R bothwell on the day of september 1889 or at any other time assigned or set over to the bear lake and river waterworks Water works and irrigation company all or any of his rights privileges or franchises under any contract with the defendant denies that said company at any time built a system of waterworks water works adequate to the needs of the defendant and its inhabitants but on the contrary alleges that it wholly tailed to do so and its alleged successors in interest have wholly failed to supply the needs of the inhabitants ot ogden city or this defendant as hereinafter more fully abet out denies that aalde company or any of its alleged successors in interest fully compiled with the requirements of said contract except as to the construction st of the east branch of the canal designated therein and denies that this defendant at any time or in any way waived the construction of sard east branch of the canal denies tor lack of information that the ogden city waterworks Water works company on tho day of march 1891 or at any other time conveyed the water works system or any of the rights privileges or franchises under the bothwell contract to the plaintiff defendant alleges that large additions have been made to the city of ogden since the execution of the alleged bothwell contract set out in the complaint thai many new buildings have been erected and that innab giants now occupy the same and that large sections of the city have been and are without water supply for domestic and other uses or fire protection within the city limits and within the district contemplated in said document to be with water pipes aad mains and fire hydrants that this Is notably the cese with the southern pacific railroad company the union pacific railroad company and the oregon short line railroad co which have erected largo and expensive ma phine shops costing approximately five hundred thousand dollars and defendant alleges that said railroad companies have repeatedly guaranteed to the plaintiff and its predecessors in interest a revenue of eight 8 per cent upon the cost ot necessary extensions and demanded that awater supply be furnished to them at said shops and in other vicinity defendant further alleges that it has repeatedly requested the said plaintiff to extend its water mains to furnish fire hydrants in the additions and newly built up sections of the city and particularly in the northern and southern portions and which extensions would produce a revenue that would pay eight 8 per cent upon the cost of the necessary extensions hut notwithstanding all of said demands and offers bald plaintiff has refused to extend its water mains at all so as to reach and supply said additions buildings and shops and has given as the only reason that it would not do so unless tills defendant would grant it other franchises and recognize the bothwell contract and revise the same defendant further says that such action upon the part of the plaintiff has greatly retarded the growth of this defendant as a city and has prevented it from the performance of its duty to its inhabitants to furnish to them an adequate fire protection and a supply of water for domestic and other purposes to the great damage of said defendant tor which it has no adequate remedy for a second and further defense defendant says that at the time of the execution of the contract set out in the complaint it was the owner of a tern of reservoirs mains pipes and hydrants of great value and also of a very valuable nater right in and to the waters of ogden river all of which the said bothwell and his successors in interest have taken possession of and have retained and used paying no consideration that since said time and up until 1901 as hereinafter set out no charge was made to the said plaintiff for the use and occupation of the streets or as a license to use and occupy the streets and public places belonging to this defendant that the water furnished by the said plaintiff Is obtained from ogden river by what is known as the gravity system and flows naturally from the point of diversion down to where it Is supplied to the inhabitants and that the only cost attached to tho system Is tho original cost of establishing it together with such necessary amount as it would require for repairs that a fair interest revenue upon the capital invested and the amount expended annually for the repairs Is very much less than the amount realized by the said plaintiff under the two schedules attached to the said contract and made a part thereof and that the said schedules always wera and now are unreasonable exorbitant and oppressive and that seventy five dollars per annum for the first one hundred hydrants and sixty 60 dollars per annum for all additional ones was and Is unreasonable and exorbitant and defendant alleges that a very large number of said hydrants to alt more than half are not used at all during the year and that the water used out of such as are operated at regular meter rates such as are and would bo a reasonable charge would amount to a very laran amount less than the prices fixed for such hydrants in such contract defendant further says that the breach of said contract by said plain t ft as to the extensions provided for therein and the damage thereby done the teis of d co ahl more and un defendant further says that on the day of september council of ogden city in the of its governing power of said city to regulate the water rates to tie charged to the city and its inhabitants duly and regularly passed an ordinance which was approved by the mayor on october and duly and regularly published here follows the copy of the ordinance passed during the browning administration making hydrant rentals free then the answer goes on to say prior to the passage of such ordinance the officers of the plaintiff acting on its behalf and of the defendants consulted together as to its terms and the said plaintiff agreed thereto and since said ordinance was passed plaintiff continued to furnish water as before its passage and never at any almo objected to the same nor has at any time presented any bill or account for any rent for hydrants to this defendant until about a month before tha beginning of this action and the D fondant further says that in the prepa ration of said ordinance it was understood and for that purpose that in lieu of any occupation or license tax to be paid by the said alft the provision was inserted that hydrants should be furnished att to the said defendant defendant a 1 leges that such provision was a reason abas and proper regulation of the water rates to be charged by plaintiff to this defendant defendant further says that on june 1903 the city council 0 ogden city duly and regularly passed an ordinance which was approved jura 1903 and which was duly published hera follows the ordinance passe I 1 under the present administration making hydrant rentals 30 and a license and occupation tax of a year the amount due the waterworks water works W hydrant rental is placed at the amount due ogden city tc dicenso and occupancy tax is given a to this as added the penal 25 a day tor failure to comply the terms of the ordinance or 1 a total of and s asked for that sum with interest less the such sums as are found to b due the plaintiff J D bagley and W L maginnis Ma ginnia ara attorneys tor tho city |