Morning journal and courier., 1881-11-07
The Water Purchase.

To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 In common with other citizens have re- ceived a circular signed by number favor ing the purchase of the property of the New Haven Water company by the city of New Haven.
 They virtually say to all citizens of New Haven who wish the city we'll, Vote for the purchase' ' On the other hand we say to the same citizens of New Haven, "Vote Ggaiaasl tue Eatrc75ase."
 I remember New Haven back to 1881, when it was either my good or my ill fortune to become resident as clerk. The State House had just been finished, the Eagle Bank had failed and the Pennington Canal was filled with water, and boats were floating up and down. The Mechanics Bank had invest ed $2OO, 900 in it and had loaned the canal money besides and lost 1t all. The city also had loaned the canal $1eO, 900 and lost it, and during the Mayorship of Hon. H. c. Flagg the father of the present Simeon Baldwin with other influential citizens got up city meeting, and a vote was passed for Mayor FIagg to issue $50, GOO more Of city bonds 1n further aid of the canal, but MT. Fiagg, rigid and fearless city father, refused to issue the bonds and thus saved the taxpayers that debt
 After this came the scheme to lend the Young Mems Institute $75, ,OOO in city bonds, but it was defeated by an informality, discov- cred too late to rectify on the then rising tide to get into debt for something Then came the water project which, upon the high pres sure of the prestige of popular mayor, was carried through all stages of progress up to a purchase of MT. Whitney of part of his waiter right, the appointment of water con- missioners to build the works and to issue city bonds to pay for them. But just at this stage of progress it was discovered that the lawyers had provided in the legislation no agent to issue the bonds, and city meeting was called to supply this defect. When re- view of the whole subject was forced upon the meeting and no agent was appoint ed subsequent meetings and subsequent legislation provided-that the people should be allowed to vote once upon the whole thing. This being done, the vote was No, for a new and impartial investigation, by newspaper articles, speeches, circulars and handbilIs, reviewed the whole subject matter, and not only the general plan but the source of supply was condemned and then, to cover MT. Whitney's disappointment, his own op- ponents at 8 city meeting generously voted disappointment, although he had not moved a stone or a load of earth. This ended the transaction.
 Subsequently a private company started to and did build the works, after the same plans and source of supply as had been con demned. To this the opponents of the city's doing it did not object, for it was none of their business what private individuals did with their money. Now the proposition is, Shall the city buy these same works. For one / soy NO, and
 First-Because they being faulty in their first inception are faulty now as plan for supplying our families with water; and lapse of time and experience have proved that the objections made when the project was defea9 ed were valid
 Second-Because the natural head is tide water, for the tide flows up to the base of the Whitneyville dam, and the head should be 15O feet higher, so as to make every hy- drant equal to steamer, as were the hy- drants in front and also rear of the Insurance building, and capable of throwing water Gas