upr000036 71

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Law Department January 15, 1949 Calvin M. Cory General Attorney 114 No. Third St. Las Vegas, Nevada Mr. E.E. Bennett Los Angeles, Calif. Dear Ed: I return herewith the galley proofs In the Oregon case of Fullerton v. Central Lincoln People*s Utility District, et al, which I have read with much Interest. I agree that this case may not be on all fours with our case, nevertheless It presents a dear ploture of the subject Involved in our case. I have discussed it with Bob Jones, the attorney representing the Water District, who was not much Impressed with the same. Last night I attended the regular meeting of the Water District Directors, as suggested by you. I am satisfied that the directors are determined to take over the water com­pany and that they presently feel this will have to be done through condemnation. They therefore are retaining Bob Jones as their attorney on a private basis, since his official duties do not require him to represent the district. Bob Jones states that our Aot was prepared by bond attorneys and that there Is no doubt of Its constitutionality nor will there be any doubt as to the validity of bonds issued without election for that purpose. The conclusion of the meet­ing, so far as I was concerned, came when the directors request­ed Mr. Jones to write a letter to the Water Company advising that the district desired to acquire the Water Company, that they would soon engage engineering services for the purpose of In­forming themselves as to the approximate value of the holdings of the Water Company preparatory to negotiating for its ac­quisition and urging the Water Company to cooperate with the district engineers and with the district directors in order that negotiations may be opened in the near future. I I have no doubt but that the district hopes to ac­quire the eompany at a figure much less than its real value and at this point It seems that we will probably go through