Mexico weekly ledger., 1888-11-01
EXPLAINED.
Mr.. George Rohertson's View OF
the Water-works Matter.

Water-works matter, this morning,
as follows:
1.-The Water-works question, as
I understand it, is thus; The
Water-works Co. and the bond
holders have made the city a pro-
position. This proposition has
been accepted by the Council and
will be carried into effect il the
voters of Mexieo, the 3rd of No
vemher. shall vote Il bonded debt
Of So, 900 upon Che city, with which
to pay the bonslnolders and the
Water-works Co.. The proposition
that has been accepted by the
Council is repeated in the oTdi-
nance passed by the Council and
daily published in both city papers.
The general understanding seems
to be that the city is to get i'll ex-
change for It's $4,000 in
bonds, all of the Water-works pro-
perry free from the debts of the
bondholders and all others and
that is what | Am informed the
City Council thought. But let us
look to the proposition made by
the bondholders and the Water
works Co. to see if that be the case.
The preamble of the proposition
made by them to the city proposes
''to settle all the differences be-
tween the city of Mexico, and the
said corporation and the said own
ers of the stock and bonds upon
the following conditions, to-wit."
And then the proposed conditions
of settlement are distinctly speci-
fed. Both parties are bound then
by the terms thus specified. The
first subdivision proposes that the
Water-works Co. shall release the
city from all back rental or other
wise growing out of the contract
made July Is, 1885; but there is no
proposal that the bondholders shall
also release this unpaid rental, and
that, in face of the fact that under
the deed of trust given by the Wa
ter-works Co. to the bondholders
upon all its assets, the bondholders
are the owners Of that back rental.
Three more words added to that
part of the proposition could have
set that matter at rest and propos-
ed a release by the bondholders
who own that back rent, and who
are the proper ones to release it.
The City Attorney, a few days since,
spends a half column over his sigma
ture to try to prove that the back
rental is released when the bond
holders surrender the bonds. By
what process he merges the back
rental into the bonds he does not
explain. To say that a sale of the
bonds to the city operates as a re-
lease of the rental is about as much
Justified as it would be to say, be.
cause l buy your buggy horse | also
get your buggy and harness. The
second subdivision specifies what
the city shall release. This pro
position very carefully covers al
claims the city may have agains
S the Water-works arising out o
/ said contract, but includes every
4 thing else by the use of the wore
=. "etherwise." Away goes the RICH
S of the city for its taxes, back take:
|. and all, and the 500 hat Mayo.
o Emmons held back for failure t.
q have steam up at a certain fire, o:
any claim it may have under thu
contract or otherwise. Now, tn
:. next and third subdivision specific
t what the city is to get. 1t all TOLD
lis, to-wit The stock ofthe Water
3 works Co. and the bonds. Now
? the stocks are not worth more thai
one cent on the dollar and tn
, bonds is the debt. The fact is, tn
: actual property of the Water-work
Co. is the real estate, the mains
. engines, etc. There is no provis
a ion made that the city is to have
deed to these things,and a cancella
ton of the franchise heretofore
given to Pond & Mastin, which
was assigned by them to the Wa
:, ter-werks Co. The City Attorne,
says in the article referred to tina
the city gets a title to the rea
estate, ETC., by a transfer of tn
> stock Of the Water-morks Co. to it
| presume that it is well founde,
in the common,'information of mel
} that the only way real estate Cal
be conveyed is by deed duly exc
1 cuted, whether it be transferred b,
a natural person or a corporation
5 Now, according to the proposition
made, also by the interpretatio,
S given it by the City Attorney, tn
e city is to buy the stock of the Wa
g ter-works Co.'S to become tn
Water-works Co. itself. To us
: his own words, "the city will stan
in the place of the stockholders
3 of the Water-works Co.
The city of Mexico is a municips
corporation and can do only whs
4 It's charter given by the legislator
t authorized it to do. And one thin
e it is not authorized to do is to pun
s chase and hold stocks, bonds, etc
n Such a power is wholly foreign t
n the objects of a city government
Any sale of stocks to it would b
I N