Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1879-07-19

gentlemen are held, which we adj
NIT to be very high; but we did
not ourselves vote pro or con, and
we observed several others present
who pursued the same course.
In the face of all this, it will be
considered remarkable that our
presence at that meeting and our
consent to act as its secretary, ac-
cording to usage with members of
the press, wassubsequently brought
up as an evidence of our approval
of the ordinances and contract in
question the anonymous commu-
nication to the Tobacco Leaf in
which this was done bearing a
strong family resemblance to that
of the 18th inst, which gave Occa-
sion to this article.
Thus much for our consistency.
1t is not often that we occupy our
space or cur readers time with
matters personally concerning our
selves. They will admit that the
communication in the Tobacco
Leaf gave us no choice but to meet
it with full explanation. We will
address one word, however, to our
respected contemporary. In both
instances the attacks on our consist
ency have been anonymous we
ourselves neither can be nor desire
to be anonymous in the matter.
Would it not be fair, if any future
assailant should be required, to
equalize his responsibility with ours
by writing over his own name?
But, before closing this article, it
will be we'll for us to state what we
consider the objections to the con-
tract. They are many, consisting
chiefly in the absence of distinct
specifications. One, however, comes
under a different category, and, as
it is the most important of all, we
will state it first.
1. The contract stipulated for the
payment of a large annual sum
($3, 900 per a9num) without having
the money to pay with or the power
under the city charter to raise it..
That they were conscious of not pos
sessing this power was manifested
when they framed an act of legis-
lature to give them that power and
then sent the City Attorney to Nash
vile to lobby it through the Legis-
lature then sitting. This was most
unfortunate position for the munich
pal officers to take, that Of soliciting
the power to tax their fellOw-citl-
zens, a petition which should never
be offered or entertained except
when coming from the citizens
themselves. The bill was defeated
by a petition from the citizens, and
the Council was left in the position
Of having made contract which it
was beyond their power to fulfill,
.. The absence of any stipulation
where the water was to come from,
1t is well known that the engineer
of the company awaited himself of
this omission 50 far as to place his
pumping engine at a point that was
universally deemed very objection,
able on hygienic grounds. 1t is
true that it was moved higher up
stream in submission TO the strong
est manifestations Of public opinion
but the omission was not the less
culpable.
3. The defective provision for en-
forcing the conditions of the con-
tract in case of their infractiOn. We
allude to the twelfth clause, which
stands as follows,
II. If from any cause there shall zoe a
failure TO supply a sufficient quantity of
water TO the Fire Department rs herein re-
Quired, by reason OF neglect, WIlfulpeSS or
Acknowledgement on the part OF the Water
Company, the city shall not for the time of
such failure be charged with or required to
pay any rents or charges for water.
For the time Of such failure; and
by what criterion is the time of
such failure to be determined ? 1t
is scarcely to be supposed that the
Fire Company will on an average
be able to test the works more than
once a month, and, supposing them
to find the supply deficient, hoW
viii they determine how long that
deficiency has lasted? 1t may have
been ever since the former time Of
testing or it may have been only
half an hour or ten minutes. If
they demand abatement for any
particular length of time they must
prove that it lasted for that length
of time, and, as we said, their avail
able proof can only extend to the
period during which the testing
process was going on, the abatement
for which would be very inconsid-
erahle sum, 1t is true, we have no
doubt, that it was the Intention of
the Council to provide that it should
go back to the time of making the
last previous test, say month, and
there may have been verbal I'M
Outstanding to that effect, but YER
bal understandings go for nothing
in the face of a written contract,
and the provision, as it stands, Is In
our opinion utterly worthless.
Many minor points might be
alleged in which the contract is
loosely constructed, but these, we
think, will suffice to show that the
contract was ill-considered on the
part of the City Council, the first
point alone being fatal to it; not
that we condemn the Council for
not being lawyers and engineers
enough to make a better contract;
we did not elect them as lawyers
and engineers, but VIC claim that
the contract before ratification ought