Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-04-20
lx,lcaster fntelltgr,1rer.

WEDNESDAY EvEN'o, APRIL 20. 1881.
Unfair and Cnwfse.
The water department of the city is
particularly vigorous this year in gath
ering in the subjects of the levy, and it is
to be commended for its zeal; but per-
haps a little more discretion would be
equally commendable. Cnquestionably
every citizen should pay for the use of
the water he gets; but he should not pay
for what other citizens use, nor should
he pay q disproportionate amount for
what he uses. The fairest way would be
to measure the water. The objection to
this is the cost of the meters. But we
can see no objection to the measuring of
water used by the large consumers Of it.
The additional rent that would be COL
lected would far more than pay for the
cost. 1t is generally believed that there
is great inequality in the charge to
manufacturing establishments who use
large amounts of water, and there should
be no hesitation in measuring the quan-
titles they actually take.
There is another particular in which
the water regulations are particularly
unfair, as it seems to us, and that is in
charging the owners Of real estate with
the water used by their tenants after
the owners have given notice to the
water department that they do not wish
to have the water SO furnished at their
expense. In the great majority of
cases no difficulty arises from this
requirement of the water committee,
because the landlord is expected by his
lease to furnish water for household
purposes to his tenant and if he pro.
vides pump it is no hardship to the ten
ant to have the city water shut of. But
in cases where properties are used for
manufacturing purposes there is an adj
ditional use and charge for water which
the tenant should pay. In such cases
the water rent should manifestly be
charged to the tenant. There is no sort
of fairness in charging it to the owner of
the real estate because it is safer to do So
The water rent is not a tax on real es-
tate it is no more such than the cost OF
the gas used. Thegas company does not
think of charging the landlord with the
gas the tenant orders to be put on, but
the water committee invariably charges
the water it lays in at the tenants re-
quest to the landlord, who gets notice OF
the fact with the bill from the city and
who vainly appeals on the ground that
he did not order it and does not
want it. Generally in such case the city
is willing to shut the water off, as it has
a right to do although it should not dc
SO when the tenant is sufficiently respon-
sible nor should it in any case, before
it has made demands upon the tenant
for payment and been refused. 1t refuses
to make such demand or to have any.
thing to do with the tenant which is
certainly both unjust and unwise. 1t
ought to be ready to give the water to
any one who will pay forit in advance,
and no business man would decline to
take the trouble of making demand fol-
payment before refusing to sell his wares
even to a beggar. In cases where the
landlord is ready to pay, according to
custom, for the water used by the tenant
in the household, but not for the addi-
tional quantity used in his business, out
of the same pipe, the city finds itself un-
able TO shut the water off and 50 insists
upon making the landlord foot the whole
bill. That this is unjust is obvious. 1t
is little better than taking a man by the
throat and robbing him of his purse. 1t
is taking an unfair advantage of power.
In all such cases when the water depart
ment is notified by the landlord that he
is not willing to be charged for water
that he did not order, and that he is un-
der no obligation to supply to the tenant,
the water commissioner obviously should
be instructed to demand the money from
the tenant and if he refuses to pay 1t
might then, perhaps, he proper to shut
OF his whole water supply.
Such treatment from parties in au-
thority is grievance over which citizens
are properly sore. If the city Of Lancas-
ter desires to engage in a business avoca-
tion, such as the supplying of water to
the citizens really is, it should not be ex.
empt from the rules governing ordina-
rily wise business transactions. 1t should
charge each citizen equitably for the
amount of its commodity which he uses,
and surely should not charge him for
what any other citizen consumes, unless
he agrees to pay for it. That proposition
is SO simple that it needs but to he stated
to prove itself. The fact that the one is
an owner of real estate and SO safer
customer is no reason at all for making
him responsible for what is not his debt.
It is not right, nor is it lawful. The
court would not uphold such wrongful
by a merchant and a city sell
ing water stands in NJ better position.
What Does 1t MeanI
The spectacle in the Senate Of admin
istration senators clogging the wheels of
government by refusing to 60 into exec
A., =