West Virginia freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1881-1886, 1882-02-22

Next | argued that if the city
agrees to pay the company $1,000
for % years, as rent or hire for the
use of the works, that contract is
not a debt under the constitution.
My reasons have not been noticed,
and | wont repeat them.
Many men who can't buy house
rent one. If &C." buys house for
81 900, on time, he owes 81 900; if,
however, instead of buying, he
should agree to pay $50 year for
% years as rent, the total rent for
the whole time would be $3.50, and
at the end of the term the landlord
would still own the house. Is there
anything in that proposition to ex-
cite the ridicule of SC" or to shock
the taxpayer of average intelli-
gence?
But &C." would have you infer
that | say: "s125,0O0 payable in 25
years is a fair price for the water
works built under the ordinance
and if the city pays the price and
takes the property the contract is
bad; whereas if she pays the price
and don't get the property, the con-
tract is good"
The suggestion is as unfair as it
is unfounded.
$1,000 year would not pay the
interest on the cost of these works
while $125,OO0 payable, without
interest, by installments for 25
years, represents only $4,000 in
cash, because money at 6 per cent.
earns $50 per cent. in % years.
While think oft, let me assure
&C." that if he can find man,
when the Company is ready to pro-
coed, who will contract to build
these works for $4,000, &C." can
clear $4,000 for his pains, and the
Company will pocket u handsome
difference between the SIS, 900 and
the anticipated cost.
&C." jumps from the platform on
which he placed the Council, leaves
the debt question, and comments on
the power of one Council to bind its
successors.
We never agreed to run though
the whole law of municipal cor
porations, but we follow him.
l am asked if there is "no le-
gal objection to the city let
ting out its police service, or the re-
pairs of the streets by contract for a
number of years." There is such
objection as to police, because there
can be no reason for it; there is as
to the streets, unless some good rea-
sons can be shown for it. Many
cities grant to railway companies
the use of streets on condition of
keeping them in repair, for long
terms.
But it is not to be expected that
a plant of say 100000 will be made
without some idea of the return up
on permanent investment. If
business men" don't recognize this
principle, the laws do.
Again: 1t is asked: "But does
the contract provide for necessary
current expense 2" The courts say
SO. 1 Dillon Corp. Sec. SO, note Q;
Grant VS.. Davenport, SO Iowa, 1856.
&c" argues that the water actual
ly used by the city would probably
be 100000 barrels year, which at
2-10 cents would be $1,000. He
seems not to reflect that without
the $1,000 contract the water could
not probably be furnished at that
sum but let that pass. He asks if
81, 200 would pay for the water used
by the city, "what service would
the remaining $500 pay for?"
With great precision his legal intu-
ition whispered an answer in all
respects correct, for he adds, "That
| suppose was for the Water Works
Company-service," and he hit it
exactly.
1t is for the service of the Compa-
ny performed over and above what
the ordinary consumer needs. The
water costs the company absolutely
nothing. In the river it is as cheap
as the air above it. The cost of
water that consumers take, is the
cost of delivering it, but this Com
pany is required to do far more than
any one citizen undertakes to
pay for, while all are interested in
| 4 L i i