Morning journal and courier., 1881-10-06
The Water Question.

measurements 10r anu AR@1mBG the
 Purchase Of the Whterworlzs.
 A meeting of the special committee on the purchase of the rights and franchises of the New Haven Water company was held in rooms 10 and II City Hall last evening, AL 1, derman Driscon presiding.
 Alderman Driscon called for an expression of opinion from those present regarding the purchase.
 Dr. John P. Phillips appeared and advoca- ted the purchase He was afraid of rings, and thought the public should guard against private as well as public rings. The ques- ton had been asked why could not the city furnish us with coal and wood as well as water; the case was different. He. thought if water rates should. be advanced by the company it would not be stopped by the Legislature. He thought it dangerous to place any of the necessaries of life in the hands of company. He thought board of water commissioners would not be ex- posed to corrupt influences any more than any other board. He favored immediate purchase rather than to let the matter run at the pleasure of the city. He said he had no doubt the purchase money could be borrowed at per cent, and that the city could pay for the works in twenty-five years. He also argued in favor of the advantages to be gained in inducements to manufacturers
 Johnson T. Platt thought the system of waterworks in New Haven was one of the best in the country. The present company controlled about all of the available sources of water supply in this vicinity. Unless there is another contract, or the city avail it. self of. this contract, the company would have unrestricted power to charge what they please. They would have 8 monopoly. which l would not be wise thing He thought the city should have control of the water for fire, sanitary, bathing and sewerage purposes. Pipes should be laid in streets where, al- though it would not pay at once, 1t would &C., commodate the citizens. He thought the purchase would be good one in commer- cal point of view and would be desirable and not result in an increase of taxation. Daniel c. Eaton favored the purchase by the city. He said the question was whether the city should purchase and make money out of it, or whether it's citizens bind them selves forever to the power of a monopoly. out foundation in fact. The city of New Ha- ven had always been ably managed and in his opinion always would be-
 l.. B. Hinman strenuously opposed the purchase by the city. He said large ma ! jority of the poor people of the city were op- posed to the purchase, and, he believed, on good and sufficient grounds. The water rates | in many cases are already too high, and yet \ the company are managing the best they can ! and are certainly not exorbitant and never | have been in their charges.
 l Philip Pond made 8 lengthy speech in op- 1 position to the purchase, and quoted largely l from the committee's report to show that no Advantages would be gained thereby. He said if the citizens voted in November to l make the purchase no one could tell what the end would be. This city does not want to own it's waterworks, and this on the 4 ground of economy. He thought the aver l age expense for ten years to run the works | would be $6O, 900 per year. In Pittsburg, Penn, where the waterworks are owned by
 the city, the rates are $27 per year, while in | this city they are only $6.
 Councilman Twiss, of the committee, re-
 marked that there was hardly city in the
 country where the soil was so easily worked
 MT. Pond said he had been
 told by well informed gen.
 tleman that it would cost $1, ,oOo, ,0oO for
 the extension of the water mains during the
 next five years. In reply to member of the
 committee he said he had no interest what
 ever in the New Haven Water company. Professor D. c. Eaton said he had never
 believed in the Saltonstall Lake supply, al.
 though the lower part of the lake was suf-
 ficiently high to supply the city with water | Mir. George Armstrong said if the city pur.
 chased the water, and they laid pipes through
 the streets where they are not already laid, l the property owners would be taxed, and 8
 lien would be put on their property whether ! they used the water or not. This was the ! case in other cities.
 Professor Gibbs said that generalities were
 somewhat dangerous. He did not believe l express companies would deliver letters ) cheaper than we receive them at present ! He said, as had been stated, that the citizens u were receiving water cheaper than they could
 receive it by the city. He doubted whether the city would be so careful as company 1T | their purchases. Of course if the city 1 owned the works no monopoly would be al
 lowed and there would be freedom from l competition.
 yl George Hotchkiss, 2d, strenuously op , posed the purchase as he thought it would
 increase the taxation.
 l Mir. Parmelee, of the Board of Education called attention to the statement of a core spondent in the COURIER, and the reply in ar . editorial, and asked the committee if it was , ! true.
 Councilman Twiss said that it had beer stated in the papers that no contract could be made with the city after February ?, 1882
 but that we would be left to the mercy oi
 the company. Such, he said, was not the
 fact, however, for if there was a disagree l ment in regard to the price the city could ! go to the Superior Court, which had full
 power to adjust all differences between the
 city and the company. Again, he said it had been stated in the Palladium that Mir. Whit ney controlled to certain extent Whitney Lake and the Water company could only
 use the water to certain depth below the overflow; this was not true only to a certain extent ,and if it was entirely l true, yet the sources of supply granted the Water company were so ample that there
 was no danger of their resources being cut | Off even in case of SaVara 6r0uth
 Alderman Dillon opposed the purchase on the ground that if the city did purchase they
 had got to go to increased expense in laying
 water mains. which would cause increased
 taxation in the form of large water rates. F. B. O'Brien favored the purchase. He ! said the only danger was that the city would not own the waterworks. He thought the
 voters were able to control all the rings that
 could be formed, whether it was a water ring, road ring, or any other ring. He
 thought all this talk about the poor man was | all bosh. He thought the purchase should
 be made, and that speedily.
 Captain Thomas O'Brien thought the com
 mlttee should know exactly what the water works would cost before arriving at con
 clusion. The matter was already under con.
 sideration by committee of the Superior 1 Court, and until that was received no deci
 s1on should be reached. On general princi pies he opposed the purchase. He believed | that if taxpayers on the outskirts were to be
 taxed to pay for the works when they re
 ceived no benefit, then it was an injustice
 He was opposed to the city assuming anJ
 more responsibility than they now had, but
 he would have the present branches of the
 city government run more economically ol
 on the same plan that they would run thei1 | own private business.
 1 H. J. Prudden argued that the educationa
 department or fire department or the police
 department might as well be put in the hands | a Y1riv fho ks
 of the city. He did not believe that matters
 had come to that point where public matters
 could not be run as cheap by the city as by
 private corporations. Adjourned.
 | Teachers' Association.
 The Connecticut State Teachers associa
 tion will be held at Hartford on Thursday,
 Friday and Saturday, the 27th, 2sth and 29tt
 inst. The speakers secured are the Hon. J.
 L. M. Curry, LL.D., agent of the Peabody
 educational fund, Richmond, va.; the Rev