Morning journal and courier., 1881-10-28
COMMUNICATIONS.
The Water Question.

I To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER: You have repeatedly expressed your belief that, should the city buy the waterworks, higher taxes and higher water rates would result, and, when referred to the statements to the contrar., in the report to the Common Council of the City Investigating committee, you have said that they were too 'rose col ored" to be accepted as authoritative. As one of that committee, I take the liberty of asking if you will kindly state in what re- spect that report is ''rose-colored" and un- trustworthy. The gist of it is summed up in the concluding paragraph as follows: 'In the opinion of your committee, the bonds of the city, bearing interest at the rate of four per cent could now be sold at pre- mium If the purchase, and any additions which might be deemed proper of new pipe or increased head of water, should cost as much as $1, ,5OO. .O00, the account of 1882, were the city the owner of the works, would probably stand about as follows
 Water rents received $40, ,0G0 Interest on $15oo.o00 city bonds, per
 1oterest sst on sia5 ooo, F. H Water Co., F'
 bonds, per cent S,750
 Expense of management and repairs
 s30,0OJ to S35,000, say.---.--.--. 35,tO0 1o3,75o Balance applicable to sinking fund or retiring
 bonds. S5o,25O
 As the number of consumers is likely to in
 
 rates were maintained, would also increase annually, thus leaving an increasing margin for application to the reduction of the water debt, or to extraordinary improvements and additions. It might also be deemed proper not to maintain the present rates in all cases, but to reduce the charges to the largest and smallest consumers, on each of which classes the burden is now heaviest. Such a reduc- ton as regards some of our large business establishments would probably result in an increase of the total income received, as sev eral of them, in consequence of the prices now asked by the Water company, have given up city water in whole or part, and resorted to the use of wells.
 The estimated income of $40, 900 for 1882 includes also the rental now paid to the Water company by the city for water used or furnished for city purposes, amounting to about $16,O 1000. It might be deemed best to drop this charge from the city accounts, and make corresponding reduction from the an- nual taxes''
 Which of these statements is erroneous?
 Is it that the city could sell it's per cent. bonds at par? One of the citizens commit tee is the president of our oldest bank, and his opinion on this point may be assumed to be sound until the contrary is proved Our per cent, bonds are now selling for over 13O. United States 3 per cent. bonds are worth premium, and our bonds are quite as safe a security.
 Is It that the committee were wrong in es- timating that the purchase price of the works, outside of the $125, 900 of Fair Haven Water company bonds to be assumed, would not ,ex- ceed $1, ,O99, ,567.40, with interest, both amounting to $1. .467, 297.16?
 In the recent trial before the Superior Court commission the counsel of the com pany only claimed principal sum of $1,A97,- orr. .35, and there was no dispute but that if 10 per cent. simple interest only were to be allowed upon it, the computation of the &C., countant employed by the citizens commit tee was correct.
 Is it that the citizens committee ought to have allowed the charge of $746, 191.8S for per cent. compound interest," which is in- ciuded in the company's claim presented to the city Tn August for $2, 222, 236. II That is a question of law, which this is not the place to discuss; but I may say that the counsel for the company, in the recent hear ing, informed the commission that there was an overcharge in that item of more than $500, ,OOO, and that their claim, now pre- sented, was only for about $1, 900, 000 You do not, however, consider this claim of con- pound interest as of sufficient importance to make it worth while to defer the city vote until the decision of the commission upon it can be fully circulated among the people, so that l dare say you agree with the citizens committee in their view of it.
 Is your objection that the $1, 467, ,297.16 would not be reduced, as the report says, to about S1, 400, GOO after November l by the water rates then payable? The company's l books show that the water rates actually col | Iected during the first half of this year were | S67, 14O. 80, and the contract gives all funds l On hand at the time of the purchase, to the | city.
 Or is it that the $1O0,0OO allowed in the | report for an immediate outlay by the city | for new pipe or increased head of water is too l little. Does anyone think the company will | spend as much as $1O0,OOO thls season in | that way? Yet you say that the present sup | ply is sufficient, the works in good condition l and everyone satisfied with the present man. | agement.
 Is it that the water rents receivable in | 1882 will not equal $14O,OO0? Their in- l crease has averaged $13, 945 during every two years in the history of the company