Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1879-09-17

sation for water for fire and general
borough purposes.
On motion, Council withdrew the
offer of 5000 per annum, and offer to
pay the Butler Water Company for
the use of water for fire and general
borough purposes at the rate of $500
per annum.
On motion, Clerk of Council was
instructed to prepare for publication
history of the controversy between the
Borough Council and the Butler Water
Company in regard to compensation to
be paid said company for use of water,
and the reasons that led to the action
taken by Council.
On motion. Council adjourned.
NJ. J. REIBER, Pres't.
FRANK NJ. EASTMAN, Clerk.
BUTLER WATER COMPANY VS.. BUTLER
BOROUGH.
Sept. ID, 1879.
TO the TarDayers Of Butter 8orOguh:
In attempting to discharge the duty
devolving upon me by order of Coun-
ell. shall endeavor briefly TO lay be-
fore YOU the whole controversy. My
connection with the Council, formerly
as President and latterly as Clerk, rem
ders me familiar with the difficulty
between these corporations IN all Its
phases.
Prior to September 30, 1877, the
subject of water works was brought
to the attention of Council by Mr..
James Mccullough, Jr, and other gen
tlemen of Kittanning. The Council
was informed that a charter was
granted and stock company formed,
composed of citizens Of kittanning
and Butler. These gentlemen from
Kittanning appeared before Council
| and very eloquently set forth the ad-
vantares of water works to our town
| in the way of fire protection, which
| would result in safety to life and prop
| ertv and a reduction of insurance rates.
Then came up the question: What
will you do to encourage US by way OF
patronage?
At meeting Of Council Sept. 30,
| 1877, specially called to consider the
matter, the following action was had,
| which / quote from the minutes of
| that meeting:
"The Council took into consideration
the question of the proposition made
by the Butter Water Company rela-
tive to supplying the borough with
water.
a motion was made by Mr.. Purvis
that Council agree is the Butler Water
Company construct water works IN the
borough of Butler, the Council of said
borough will patronize said water
works by putting in at least twenty
fire plugs, and pay for use OF water
from same for fire and general borough
purposes, at the rate of $500 per an
mum, or at such rate as is paid by
other boroughs corresponding in popu-
lation to Butler.
"On the question, will the Coun-
ell agree to the motion p the yeas and
NAYS were required by Messrs. Reiber
and Purvis, and were as follows:
"Yeas-Messrs. Fisher, Bauer, Pur-
Wis and Eastman,
"Nays-Mr. Reiber.
$50 the question was decided in the
Affirmative"
Upon the construction Of the above
resolution hangs the whole difficulty
The works were constructed. When
the Council came to consider the ques-
ton of fire hydrants and hose it was
deemed expedent to put in forty lire
hydrants instead of twenty, as con-
templated in the resolution.
Two important considerations led to
this increase: First-Ample protection
from fro to the greatest number of
property owners seGOnd-The rela-
tive cost and durability Of fire hy=
drants and hose. Fire hydrants, from
their nature and construction, may be
considered as permanent, cost Of re-
pairs being comparatively trihing. On
the other ID, hose being constructed
of perishable materials and liable, from
various causes, to become useless and
require replacing or expensive repairs,
and also requiring great care IN It's
preservation.
The question arose which would be
the cheapest in the end, few hydrants
and great number of feet Of hose, or
many hydrants and not so many feet
of hose. The fact that hydrants are
of a permanent character, requiring
but little outlay for repairs, and that
hose is liable to burst and wear out
and require replacing at a large cost,
led the Council to put in more hy-
drants and buy less hose. The Coun-
Gil considered forty hydrants, at cost
of about 81 800, and 200 feet of hose,
at cost of $500, cheaper in the end
than twenty hydrants, at cost of
$500, and 1000 feet of hose, at cost
of $l,780, because hydrants are per-
manent and hose will wear out and
have to be replaced.
Now comes the controversy between
the company and the Council. The
company contend they should have an
increase in water rent on account of
additional plugs, over and above the
$500, for at least twenty plugs, because
forty plugs have beon erected, The
Council claim the borough will use no
more water from forty hydrants than
they would from twenty. How is
that? A fire breaks out in our town.
We have forty plugs and 1000 feet of
hose The fire companies attach, say
four plugs. Suppose we had but
twenty plugs and 1000 feet of hose,
the fire companies would be able to
use the same number of plugs by
using more hose and, consequently, the
consumption of water would be as
great. For sanitary purposes the con-
sumption of water would not neces-
sarily be greater from forty than twenty
plugs. Should the Water Company
charge the borough more for use of
water because the taxpayers foot the