Morning journal and courier., 1881-10-14
The Water auastion.

The water Question.
 To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 There has been good deal written of late about the Water question, 7" and good argu- ments on both sides have been advanced. Let me give my opinion, which, like all others previously expressed, can be taken for it's worth, be 1t more or less.
 Some time ago an unknown friend mailed me printed report of the committee ap- pointed to see how many of our larger cities owned their own waterworks, and how many were the property of individuals. The great CT number, particularly of the large cities, were themselves the owners. This is doubtless due to the fact that the cost of building is large, and the enterprise not usually good one for investment. Hence, as water is need ed, 1t can more easily be voted for than ''sub- scribtd' for. Now there is not the slightest doubt but what if a city could own many works which are of general public good viz. water, gas and the telegraph, in one sense the public would be the gainer, but as to whether they would be as well managed and with as much economy is quite another ques- ton
 It is rule, which is as painful as true to admit, that when city government once gets control of such matters the sudden expendi- ture of large amounts of money is needed, which Gas in the question before us) would be quite as likely to benefit certain individuals now not holding office and would-be office holders as the public. The "spoils of of fice,'' and not the economy of management or cheapening of rates Gas a rule), is the mis- fortune of present public management. I know of a city which owns it's own water works and the management of those works is not for the general good, but for private ends of politicians, and would 1t not be so in our case? But what is to be done? Some thing must be decided upon in all such cases as this. Why, if it can be plainly shown that the cost of building and caring for the Present system of supplying water is so great that the stockholders get not an extravagant percentage of the money actually invested then let it alone, for I question if the city would have been willing to take the risk of the in vestment at the time the works were built, and now let the company get some benefit for their venture. The law of supply and de- mand ought to regulate such matters, and would in any smaller enterprise.
 AS nearly as can see by the eommunica- tions in the papers, the company have been to large expense to build the works, which until now have never been remunerative and are just beginning to pay. And now the city has the charter privilege to step in and buy, upon certain con- ditions, and the stockholders don't wish to sell their stock, even at a good ad- vance, after they have carried it these many years without dividends. It seems to me that the offer made by the company a few days ago was a fair one, and if it comes to a vote upon that issue know of one vote they can count on.
 To sum up, let the waterworks be control- led by private persons if they were the first to furnish it, but let there be condition which I understand they offer) that in case the pop ular demand require change, that change can be legally and quickly made. M. c. s.