Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1873-09-06

L.. A..
Rssoiysd, Thatlhs City Engineer DO author
I. lap and North streets, at the alley. within th
next sixty days.
Adopted BY Council September 3. 1873.
BY Councilman Hunt;
Resolved. That the property owners on bot
sides Of 9ouloe street. from Vance to 81. Pau
streets. be required 60 lay down plank side
walks within the next thirty days.
Adopted BY Couneil September 3. 1873.
by Councilman Clouston; It
Resolved, That an oil lamp be placed Il
front Of the Causey street Baptist church i'm
mediately. between Linden and cause'
Adopted by Council September 3. 1873.
BY Councilman Holbrook:
Resolved, That the City Engineer bo di
rected TO have the Nieolson pavement repaired
at the intersection Of Main and Washington
streets, and furnish the City Attorney with .
bill Of costs OF said Improvement.
Resolved. That the City Attorney be directed
TO commence action against proper parties FOL
Adopted by Council September 3, 1873.
REPORT on SPECIAL WATER WORKS ooMMIrFEE.
We the undersigned. members of your
Special Committee. 20 whom was referred the
propriety Of receiving the water works and
closing with that company a contract renting
large number Of fire hydrants at q fixed
yearly rent, beg leave TO report adversely, for
the following reasons; aU
al. Because such a contract would be
illegal. this company beins. bound by its
charter 20 furnish the city with water free Of
charge This is the language Of their charter
in reference thereto: Be II further enacted
that said company shall furnish water TO the
city Of Memphis sufficient TO supply the public
offices. police stations. hospitals and engine
houses. and for extinsuishing ires free Of
| charge.
| The Water Company claim that the contract
now proposed was ratified by three-fourths Of
/ the qualified voters Of the city Of Memphis, at
| an election held for that purpose on the 9th
| day of January, 1872. and that we have no
| right now TO raise the question whether II be
illegal or not. But this is not so. The con
| tract mover was submitted to a vote oftho peo-
pie. The question submitted on that occasion
/ was: shah the city Of Memphis subscribe for
/ Sl00, 900 stock of the Memphis Water Com
pany. The question Of the city paying. an
enormous rent for water used in extinguish-
| ing fires was never submitted to a vote of the
people, and even If il was. and ninety-nino in
/ every one hundred voted TO pay for il. con-
tract binding the city to do so would be still
| illegal.
A vote of the people could not confer this
charter, nor can their vote abridge il, or any
Of the rights granted therein, neither can
their votes release the c9rporators nom any OF
the obligations imposed therein, and one of
these obligations explicitly and emphatically
| stated is. that this company shall furnish the
city water for extinguishing fires free of
| charge. This language is too plain 10 admit of
evasion or misconstruciiOn. The pretense or
subterfuge that the city PAYS only for the
FIRE hydrants. and not for the water, is too
silly, and will not be sustained by any court.
saloon keeper who is forbid by law to sell
whisky, and tries TO avade it by filling bottles
with whisky and then selling the bottles.
would stand on better ground, legally, than
this Water Company, when they try to make
the city pay rent for FIRE hydrants. The Mem
phis Water Company is now furnishing the
city with water for extinguishing fires, in the
same way that all other cities which have the
Holly system are furnished-that is, through
FIRE hydrants-and their charter and the law of
the land will compel them TO furnish it in this
manner free of charge.
?. This contract would be extremely unjust
and burdensome. This Water Company have an
exclusive charter, and they are therefore COM
PEELED to furnish an universal supply of water;
that is ,eyerycitizen of Memphis can force them
to run their pipes in such manner that each
one san have access to them. In other
words. they can be forced to lay down their
pipes on every street in the city of Memphis.
We have about thirty miles Of streets in the
city, and this contract would compel us to
rent on those thirty miles at least $50 by
drants. at an annual rent Of $4,000 a year.
We have now four FIRE engines, which cost
about $1,000 yearly each. The friends of this
Water Company and the citizens at large think
that IL would be too dangerous TO rely wholly
on this water company. and we had a signal
proof of this at this late fire on the corner of
Vance and Causey streets. They therefore
propose to abolish two engines. which would
make saving of $4,000 a year, But as we
have already shown. the city would have to
pay this water company $4,000 a year, so that
the city would suffer direct loss of s32 900
year By this contract. Surely there can be no
member of the General Council so dead to all
feeling. or deaf TO the cries Of our ovsr-taxed
citizens as to vote to impose such an illegal
and unjust contract on them as this.
3. One Of the arguments used by the Water |
Company is that in the case Of fires they have
10 use additional force 70 supply water for their
extinguishment. and that for this reason they |
are entitled to such contract as this. That |
The force is always in proportion to the work to
be done. is the leading characteristic of the |
Holly system, which they have adopted. Had |
this company adopted the reservoir or the |
stand pipe system, they dare not utter a word |
about contract, but 90 on and supply the |
city with water fer extinguishing fires free of
charge, according TO the principle and capac- |
ity of these systems. But having adopted the |
Holly system, they try to stuff the main prin- |
ciple of that system down in their pockets and |
say TO the city, You shall not have the benefit |
of it unless you pay US dearly. This is against |
all law and equity. Their charter authorizes |
them to establish and construct water-works |
without designating which Ofthe systems now |
in use they shall adopt; and, as we have |
already shown, il provides that the city shall |
receive water free, no matter what system |
they adopt. nor on what principle II shall be |
furnished. But suppose the law to decide that |
the city should pay them for the additional |
force they employ in case OF tres. How much |
woald that be? Last year We had seventy |
Eve fires; an average Of 81 each, or $500 a |
wear. will more than pay the Water Company |
for their additional expense. How can we for |
a moment think Of entering into contract TO /
pay them 30000 or $4,000 year for this?
&. The adTocates for entering into such
contract with this company claim that we
ought to do so because the city is stock
holder, half owner Of these works; and be-
cause she has become such without it costing /
her dollar. Let us examine carefully the |
facts IN relation to this matter. The city holds /
a certificate. signed By the officers Of this com
pany, for 500. 900 paid up stock in this corpo-
ration, but she has not paid dollar OF u.
There is not a lawyer in Memphis. nor in the |
State of Tennessee, who will not say that the
citE is still liable for for this 500 900 just as
II she held no certificate Of paid up stock.
That certificate u therefore . fraud and a
cheat, and it would be the hight Of folly and /
criminality TO take il into account when judg-
ing Of the advisability Of entering into this
contract But suppose the city does own halt
the Water-WOrks without paying a dollar
therefor, let US examine and see what she
gains By il. In order 10 construct these works
the corpOratOrs issued 500, 900 Of bonds, bear
ing seven per cent; interest, Ihey nave erected
works aud laid down about sixteen miles Of
pipe, and now admit that their funds are ex-
hausted. IL is reasonable 10 suppose, there
fore, that the $500 900 bonds are used up. By |
the Secretary report We ma That the actual
cost Of these works is 1926. 6l3 65. Deducting
this from the 500 900 leaves net loss Of /
nearly el75.O 900. in which the city il half
owner; 90 that by being stakeholder In the
Mempnh wafer company the tity bee1ibea
worth S57 900 less than nothing. Therefore no /
member Of the General Council. who il sole |
itous 70 promote the welfare Of our city, can
argue from tnssc facts that it is 10 our interest
70 enter into a contract with this Water Com
pany and pay them $1,000 or 81. 900 year,
sinply because the city has received from this
W steT Company a worthless scrap Of paper
called q stock certificate, the printing and /
signing Of which did NOT cost them more than
6o This contract, which We arc asked 20
rally IL both illegal and unjust. The city re
ceiyes nothing IN retHrn whatever for the enOT
nous rents which Il provides fhall be paid for
water which the city Is entitled 10 receive free
Of charge. The duty Of every member Of the Il
that none can mistake which IL the interest Of
the citizens and taXpayert, and IL II 10 reject Il
this contract. sought 10 DO imposed on ua By /
the Memphis Water Company. But IN order