Morning journal and courier., 1881-09-17

1875, Sy,S6l 13.729 1874, 1858 25S56 1875, 92,744 4O,s42 1s76 lO6,6S6 SS,07s 1S77 114,734 27,5e8 1s7S 1171s1 22,s5S 1873 124,la7 2s,e2o
 The receipts for the six months of the present year show considerable increase those for the same period in 1881, and the expenses somewhat less.
 The Water Company is earning eight per cent on its capital stock at it's present rate Of charges besides paying the interest on it's bonds
 As tn the city & shOuld it buy out the COmpany must the interest of the city that the purchase is bie, for if the companys claim, as to the amount of it's capital paid in be correct, every months delay costs the city nearly S20Oo, that is, onetwelfth of the difference between eight and ten per cent. year. on over $1, 100000.
 It has been suggested in some of the public hear ings before your Joint Special Committee Water, that the Water Company might be willing to agree to extend the right to purchase under the contract for twenty years mora. Such extension would leave the city in position much less favorable than it of the Company would Ia keep r1nning against s the city, and add ct the end of another twenty years, on o before November 1st, 1881.
 Our calculations of interest, to determine the to the day last mentioned for two reasons:
 l. sec of the Act of April IA, 1884, provides for of the freemen of the city before that day, should one hundred taxpayers SO request.
 2. The water rates for six months due and pay able that day, thus bringing s67OOO into the treasury of the Company, which would become the property or the clGy II the pufCa28e were mAQe.
 Deducting this of s67, ,OOo, the amount of pur- chase money would in opinion, not exceed about low that amount for reasons heretofore Indicated
 The $l25,O00 of Far Haven Water Go. bonds, due tion to the s 4OO,o and the interest annually pro- vided for.
 right of purchase to the city, the result long controversy as to whether we should construct and control our own waterworku, or not, to which some reference in this report seems proper.
 Ia 1852, Committee of nine WAS appointed at 8 feasible mode of supplying the city with water for the extinguishment of fires and other purposes neering surveys and investigation. The Committee COT sisted of the Mayor, AargaEN Skinner, Henry G. Elliott, Henry Hotchkss, William H. Ellis, Henry Peck and Elias Gilbert Three of these gentlemen represented the Court of Common Council three were from the Water Company, and three from the citizens at large.
 mending that the waterworks should be constructed. and owned and controlled by the city, and that the source of supply should be Mill River After full discussion by the and in public meetings these recommendations were approved by the city and the issue bonds and appoint Board of Water Commis- sioners to construct and manage the works. Such Council, and proceeded to make contract with Eli Whitney for the necessary water rights upon Mill River, for the price of 0O00 half payable in city bonds at premium of ten per cent The further timated not to exceed $275 00O the supply then population of about 20 GOO inhabitants city meeting was called in 1854 to appoint an expenses and resulted in failure to make such an appointment and the consequent collapse of the whole project Mr Whitney sued the city for break ing its contract with hiHn and considerable sum paid in settlement of the claim; after which he made tue contract with the Water Company, under which the present works were constructed In the r-port of the Committee of Nine submitted to and adopted by the city meeting in 1853 this Ia
 eft Is obvious that where the waterworks are owned by private company, the profits must be it's object these profits, especially if steam pow is used, must depend upon the sma1lness of the
  of the price paid for that the interest of the Company and the interest City must be in ire quent collision that the Fire Department will of ten be in controversy with the Water Company j. and that this dependence of the City upon D private interest will Asterially diminish the benefits of both the Water and Fire departments and cause the City much trouble and detriment
 1.-The interests of the citizens and the prosper ity of the City require that the water should be supplied in liberal quantities and at the lowest rates.
 money. The smaller it's supplies, higher it's ratesthe less it's expenditures for substantial and durable works, and the less liberal it's policy, to ! certain extent the greater it's profits" IA project involving such great interests should not be allowed to out of the control of the City and the public health the public safety, and the pub them to system conducted only to promote private interest, instead of system conducted only for the public good.
 Some favor the idea of allowing the works to be conducted and owned by company at first. with 8 the City. Whatever differences of opinion there may be on this question, there is doubt, among those | \ to own the works in the end.'
 The time has come in which the City's inter- ests require final action in the matter thus laid be- fore citizens in 1s63 and postponed by the ! tract of 1862 for future consideration. ! Your Committee are unanimously of the opinion that the value of the works franchises and property of ths Water Company is considerably greater han l the rrice at which the city purchase them ' under the provisions of that contract. The Philadelphia Waterworks, when that city had now had cost about three millions and half and those or Boston and New York, at the point oi development had cost & sum much greater than that But whether works have been economi-
 eally constructed than those of other cities not
 pipes may be required within the next years tc
 meet the public wants, it is probable that few would pendent works in competition with those of the
 Water Company IT, then, the city Is ever to own its waterworks now is the time to secure them. since they can be secured on more favorable terms than they ever can be again.
 1 It will be seen from the figures previously given
 that the income from water rates has steadily and largely increased from year to year.. similar in
 in the future s certain is the growth o ! our population and the multiplication of our manu | featuring industries.
 city bearing interest at the rate of four per cont | could now be sold at premium. If the purchase
 and any additions which might be deemed proper o1
 new pipe or increased head of water should cost
 much $ C00 the account Of 1882, were the city \ the owner of the works would probably stand about | as follows:
 Interest s1,5OO,OoO city bonds,
 Interest ter ef on $i25,o F. H. Water eO''' | Co. bonds, per cent SIoO | Expense of management and ! pairs, s5O,000 to $350Oo, say. 35,o00 103, ,750 Balance applicable to sinking fund retfr- | Ing oonos- bSo' 1o' AS the number of consumers is likely to increase
 every year, the income, if the present rates wert
 maintained, would also increase annually, thus leav
 ing increasing margin for application to the re
 duction of the water debt, or to extraordinary i'm
 provements and additions. It might also be deemet
 prop not to maintain the present rates in all cases ! but to reduce the charges to the largest and thu
 smallest consumers, each of which classes the bur ! den is heaviest. Such reduction regard | some of our large business establishments woul(
 probably result in an increase of the total income re | ceived as several of them. in consequence of thu | prices asked by the Water Company, have give1
 up city water, in whole part, and resorted to thu ! use of wells.
 The estimated income of s14O,OOO for 1882 include | also the rental now paid to the Water Company b,
 the city water used furnished for city amounting to about S16,000. It might be deemed
 best to drop this charge from the city accounts
 make a corresponding reduction from the annua ! taxes.
 | Your Committee therefore recommend the adoption | of the accompanying orders.
 | All of which is respectfully submitted. | SIMEON E. BALDWIN,
 I WILBUR F. DAY, Cornmittaa ! EZEKIEL G. STODDARD, I LEWIS ELLIOTT,