Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-08-02

Lino curing, anu Is no QOuOI Satisfactory To
you, put is it correct? / think not. You are
clearly violating the law of Congress- which
Ieads that the water rents "shau never be a
source OF revenue" because you are trying to
make water rents pay water taxes. Would Ii
not be better way to leave the water rents as
they Were, and provide for past Indebtedness,
which cannot be chargeable to water rents, in
receipts from rents at the old rates would be
amply sufficient to run the department, paw the
interest on water bonds, and the SIS 900 required
f0r the sinking fund. You say the receipts OF
the department for the fiscal year ending June
80, 1879, were as follows:
From water rents. OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES, $50 $50 OS
from taps and permits. ....... 1869 Is
from water main taxes. ..... 21,O79 95
IOtal .S10S, 632 IS
>. The requirements, according to your figures,
II we leave out the deficiency that you have
allowed the department to drift Into and the
5000 for high grounds. would be as follows:
For current expenses OF department. . $45 800
For interest on water bonds ($4os, 900 at
For sinking fund to redeem said bonds. 1900 1900
For laying distributing mains ~ 1900
This would leave surplus, according to your
own figures, (Which for expenses of the depart.
m q, are more than twice what they should be)
You say ''the Commissioners hope to reduce
the current expenses Of the department to
ABOUT $36, 0OO-instead OF $45 500, as estimated -
why Ii IL Cudb IL COStS 50 WuCQ more 10 run this
department than formerly? The current ex-
penses up to the tine Congress took the govern
ment away from the people did not exceed
$4,000 per year. l have before me q report
Regtstrar-to Mayor Wallach, March /, 1864.
embracing the receipts and expenditures of the
water department for the first five years end
Ing December 81, 1868. During those five years,
the entire expenditures OF the department were
but Sill $685.. OF this sum 81 600 WAS Maid
for the purchase and laying OF water mains,
$S,Sl52S for real estate, and $l3 425 81 for i'm,
terest on water stock, leaving a balance OF
t2l $500 for all other expenses, or less than
5000 per year. This period included the orga-
n1zatfon Of the department., which Involved q
vast amount OF labor and expense not necessary
to be Incurred nck. The receipts from water
rents curing the Year ending December 81, 1863,
were SD, s22.I5, and the total expenditures ex,
elusive of cost OF water MAINS and &C. 796 81 paid
for interest On water stock was 81, $50 IS. leay
Ing surplus to the credit of the water fund
from rents alone OF $7,969.57. The greater the
number OF water takers the less In proportion
should be the expense OF running the depart
ment. But you seem to have reversed the rule.
and allow the expenses to much more than
keep pace with the increase Of business 1t
the head OF the water department during
the administration OF Mayor Emery. the
current expenses that year were less than
$4,000 which included the expense Of copying
the names OF all water takers from old to new
books, and the getting OF for advertisement by
the tax collector Of four years water taxes in
arrears. The number Of water takers has near
ly doubled since that time, but the expense OF
running the Office should not have Increased
over fifty per cent. 1000 should be amply
sufnc1ent TO do what you estimate will cost
s45, 500 and If you dispense with the worthless
stand pipe $4,000 should be sufficient. Here
are the items, some Of which might be dispensed
with: All, except the stand pipe, which know
nothing about, are put at the very highest
figures: