upr000103 90

Mr. Thomas #6 A. Campbell 1-18-57 manner and by the same methods as are specified in the contract; stated another way, the bondholder is entitled to the remedies of enforcement which are provided for in his contract. Legis­lation of the proposed type would undoubtedly impair the bond­holder's remedy of enforcement by switching final responsibility for performance of the contraot from the Board of Directors of the district to the Public Service Commission. When the effect of putting the district under the com­plete supervision of the Commission is considered, the importance of the remedial rights of the bondholder is readily apparent. Pinal determination of all questions relating to rates, adequacy of water service, operation of the water facilities, and the making of additions and betterments to the water facilities would be transferred from the Board to the Commission. This cannot help but work to the disadvantage of the bondholder. It would necessarily result in delay in making rate adjustments. The secur­ity behind the bonds would be reduced because the Commission, independent of the Board of Directors, or even against the will of the Board of Directors, could require an expenditure of dis­trict revenues for additions and betterments to the water facili­ties, thereby reducing the amount of revenues available for payment of the bonds. Moreover, if the bondholder found it neces­sary to bring a court action to enforce his rights, he might have to bring such action, not against one agency but against two agencies; indeed, there may be serious doubt as to his power to maintain any action against the Commission. The leading case on the principle that the remedies for enforcing a contract may not be impaired is Wolff vs. New Orleans, 103 U.S. 358, 26 L. Ed. 395 (l88l). There it is said (at £6 L. Ed. 399)* "The prohibition of the Constitution against the passage of laws impairing the obligation of contracts, applies to the contracts of the State, and to those of its agents acting under its authority, as well as to con­tracts between individuals. And that obligation is impaired, in the sense of the Constitution, when the means by which a contract at the time of its execution could be enforced, that is, by which the parties could be obliged to perform it, are rendered less efficacious by legislation operating directly upon those means. As observed by the court in the case cited [Von Hoffman v s . City of Quincy, 4 Wall 5353* 'Without the remedy the