Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-10-03

defendants further say that this declared
Dan kruptcy of the water fund and general
refusal OF the property-owners OF Georgetown
10 pay the water tax was attempts to be
cured by an ordinance of the corporation of
February 8, 1852, In relation TO water stock
as foliovs: "Resolved by the board Of alder
Georgetown, that the clerk be, and he is
heTby, authorized to pay the interest OF the
water stock out OF the general fund, the
amount SO paid to be replaced to the credit
OF the general fund SO soon as water taxes
are collected and paid over by the collec-
tor" that IN pursuance OF said ordinance the
general fund and that the proceeds of water
taxes were not reserved for the REDEEM ption
OF the water stock, but that large part OF
one s al Jug Cost OF nsintainance was paid
y, 1Sf3, salary OF the city surveyor ard sum
cry bills for repairs OF hydrants, fire plugs
snd other incidental expenses were so
Lot sufbce for the maintenance of the supply
and the interest on stock; that on February
., lst4, hve fiscal years after issue of water
and on that day An ordinance was passed
.'IevyiDg general tax and special direct
taxes for the year 1894, and providing for the
redemption OF water stock :" which set apart
i've cents on the hundr ed dollars for the ne .
compton OF water stock. The 5th section
provided that hereafter the interest on stock,
shall be paid ont OF the general fund; that
the true intent and meaning of this ordi-
nance was to relieve the coplplainaDt
(Welcb) and others who used this water in
lhe1r premises from paying the expenses
ncicental to supplying them with water,
ana impcse such expenses upon the general
body of taxpayers; that By said ordinance
owners OF vacant lots, OF personal property
only, or OF dwelling houses not stu ted on
the streets where water mains were laid,
were all forced to pay portion of the ex-
peDse or supplying complainant with W atsr
In bis private dwelling; an d defendar Is SUD-
NIT 10 the court that said ordinance was un.
equal and unjust in its operation aud IN
sOnnd in principle, inasmuch as 1t levied q
tax on some citizens to purchase a private
and personal benefit for other citizens and
that 1t was in violation OF the aforesaid act
OF Msfeh ., isoy, whlcn clrected annual rates
TO be levied upon all who should use the
water, and that IL was reversal of the poll
icy OF imposing water rates on all persons
using the water, which bad been declared in
the ordinance OF April %, 1859, which was
ratified by Congress May II. 1862.
Defendants have no knowledge or belief
Is to whether complainant owned q lot or q
street, past which the water mains was laid,
or whether he was assessed the go cents per
front foot tax, or whether he paid that tax;
and they deny the allegation of complain
ant ant In respect Of his supposed right TO the
charge, but say that he has the same right
10 The use OF the water as any other OF the
citizens OF Washington or Georgetown, viz:
10 use II on paying his proper share of the
cost OF distribution to the dwellings of resi-.
dents, but TO the best OF their belief com.
plaiDant mas been using said water since
any of the costs and charges OF distribution,
but that all the costs and charges of supply.
ing said compiainaut's dwelling with water
has been borne by the general fund of
Georgetown, and since 1871 by the payers OF
water rents in the city Of Washing tom the
corporation of Georgetown having ceased to
6 xist on the LIST day Of June OF 1871, was con-
solidated with the District of Columbia, and
sll placed under water registrar appointed
for the same; that before and at the time OF
said consolidation there was no ordinance
In Georgetown by which just and proper as
sessments on the plan OF annual rates
could be made upon persons using the
aqueduct water, but the expenses Incl.
were paid OUT ~ the if general fu Otpef Of
Georgetown; that Congress adopted no pro.
portion Of the general expenses OF the bis.
trict government to be paid by Georgetown,
and in Its appropriations recognized no diff
ference between portions OF the territory
over which the district government had
been established, and 1t was not intended to
Georgetown, or to continue the unjust prac-
tice OF compelling the whole body Of tax
payers OF Georgetown TO pay the expenses OF
supplying Welch and OTHERS with water free
Of cost; that the considerations of the gov
apd OF the water supply systems
had for effect TO make the monies received
by the water registrar of the District COM
mon fund out OF which 1t was necessary TO
pay all Incidental expenses; that OF all the
monies received for rents from June /, 1871,
TO the commencement OF this suit, no more
than one hundred and twelve dollars and
water-takers In Georgetown, and that CON-
plaiDant paid no part OF this sum; that dur.
Ing the same time the expenses incident to
the water service in Georgetown was very
large; that from June 1, 1874, to August /,
1876, the cost for lat Or and material, repairs
and costs OF high service pumps and ex.
all of which, except SIP u, has been paid by
and other takers in Washing
ton; that at the commencement of this suit
the expense for running the GEORGETOWN
steam pump for twenty four hours was
$3.50, and aiter the completion OF the high
service reservoir the eX pense of running IL
for twelve hours will be about 80, part OF
which expense should be paid by Welch who
enjoys the benefit of said pump; and tney
say that he has paid no part OF said costs,
and now seeks the aid of the court to enable
him to avoid the payment OF his just pro.
portion.
II This paragraph, claiming that q con-
tract has been created between the COM
Plainant and the United States by which
forever upon his free use OF the water, as
alleged, is denied.
ID. Defendants admit all the allegations of
u this paragraph except the words: From
the said water hdue hitherto been and are now
free" and they say that prior to June, 1871,
the citizens OF Georgetown using water did
payers did pay the expenses from 1864 to 1871;
that both the corporations Of Georgetown
and Washington adopted similar action,
each issuing water stock bonds payable In
ten years, the proceeds Of which was used to
pay of original cost Of laying pipes and cur
rent expenses; but the leading differences
between the policies of the two Corporations
was that Georgetown imposed an annual tax
for four years equal to e3 Der year on
each lot OF twenty feet front on streets
through which mains were laid, said tax
being 'rrespe ctive OF the use Of water by
private persons, and was imposed on vacant
as well as improved lots; that this tax did
not for five years yield enough to pay inter
est on water stock and current expenses;
that on February 6, 1864, Georgetown uu-
Justly and In violation OF law passed an or
dfnance devolving the expenses OF water
supply NJ on the general fund nom which
the water stock was finally paid; in short,
that the policy was to make persons who
did not use water pay the bills OF those who
did use 1t; while the policy Of Washington
has been to m AXE nobody pay except those
who use II; that while for certain objects of
general use for personal comfort, such as
VS.. er and gas In dwellings, the advantages
Of cooperation may be legitimately Ob-
tanned through municipal governments, 1t is
an illegal abuse to use them as q means OF
making those persons pay for such advant-
ages who do not enjoy them, aud they sub