Morning journal and courier., 1881-08-11

Our correspondent is mistaken in thinking
 and saying that we have "been unconscious
 ly led into making what is really an unfair
 statement of the question at issue" We
 have not been unconsciously, or consciously,
 led into any such error, nor have we made an
 unfair statement of the question. When we
 said, stThe question for the voters to consid-
 CT is whether the city will gain anything by
 making this large expenditure, when it can,
 by simply renewing it's contract, continue
 matters in their present very satisfactory condition" we meant more by the word
 "city" than merely the various departments of the city government. In short, we meant what we said.
 This being made clear, all that remains is to show that we have not helped to befog the question, as alleged by our correspon- dent, and that he and those who think and argue with him are the real mystifyers. The gist of his argument is contained in the fol- lowing sentence: ''You must be aware that failure to purchase places this community in state of absolute dependence upon a mo- nopoly that owns and controls every drop of public water supply that is or can be available" If our correspon- dent really believes this he is befogged and has tbeen unconsciously led into making what is really an unfair statement of the question at issue'' It is not true that failure to purchase will leave this community at the mercy of the Water Company. In accord ance with provision of the contract which has worked so well another contract can be made which will act, as the old one has act ed, as protection to consumers of water. With such contract it would not be for the interest of the Water Company to oppress the citizens. Furthermore, under no cir cumstances would this community be at the mercy of water company. It could at any time, by an appeal to the Legislature, take control of the water company's property or regulate it's rates. What reason is there to expect that if the Water Company is permit ted to continue operations under similar re- strictions to those which have surrounded it in the past it will suddenly develop into an outrageous monopoly? Water is fur nished to us now very cheaply com pared with the rates in most cities. Is it likely that the company, after another contract containing provision for purchase by the city had been made, would be short sighted enough to enter upon a career of ex- tortion which would only end in it's complete discontinue If there were any fear of this the contract might be made so as to dispel it. The old contract reads: 'It is further mu- tualIy covenanted and agreed by and between said parties that said party of the second no-f (fba oitv1 ehaII hava tho riolat fo yaur chase at aasy time dstsFag tue continuance cf this contract, Gfter ten years from the dGte cf the same, all the franchises. property and as- sets of said company" The new contract might be made so that the right of purchase would be effective in one year from the date of the contract, instead of ten. Under the circumstances, then, what have we to fear, or what is the necessity for an immediate pur- chase of the waterworks by the city?
 Our correspondent rather impertinently in- sinuates that we are looking at this question from the stockholders standpoint. We might retort that he is looking at it from the standpoint of those who want office in or un- der city Water Board, but we will not inn pute base motive to him and if necessary, we will disclaim any motive for our own action in the matter but a care for the best interests of this community, which motive, he justly acknowledges, has governed us in the past. In conclusion we reiterate our opinion that if the city buys the waterworks the citi- gems will not gain anything-that is, they will not have cheaper water, and they will have soonsr4er later, political water ring to con- tend with