National Republican., 1888-05-07
TIE REPORT CRITICISED.
Letter to the Commissioners Pointing
Out Its inaccuracies.


isting In their annual report.
Through the politencss Of Mr., Commissioner
WhCatlcy am In receipt Of n copy oi your an.
nunl report for the year ending June 30, 1887
for which courtesy desire to express my
thanks
This report bears date Dec. /, isS1 Why II
should be over four months getting through
the government printing office doth not ap.
rear II Is fortunate that this Is not a short
'cssion OF Congress II II were the report
would he of no use TO members or citizens. so
far as as affecting district legislation Is con.
CCrnCd.
i am glad to be able to say that this report
contains much valuable information for
which take pleasure in thanking the com
mis- sluncrs, while, at the same time, ! feel II
my duty TO call your attention especially to
the management of the water department,
which do not hesitate to say, from inlorma.
tlon obtained from this report, as well as from
other sources, Is Il fraud upon the people. who
arc REQUIRED. without having any voice in the
matter, to pay It's outrugcOusly CXtravNgant.
" not fraudulent, bills.
I have not time in this communication to 90
thoroughly into the subject, but will call your
attention toa few things which, think you
VIII agree with me, require your Immediate
First, With regard to receipts and cxpcndi.
lures for laying water mains. Captain
SymOns, In his report to you, see page ipi,
states that the cost of laying water mains, in.
tersCCtlOns, and erecting five hydrants for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, was S5903no2,
and the assessments levied IN consequence of
these mains, S3l,ll9N showing excess Of cost
over assessment of i5S.
From what fund is this excess paidy There
can be but one source from which to obtain
the money, and that is from water rents. SO
that what | charged last year, that water
rents are used to pay for laying water mains,
or, IN other words, that the labOring men and
sewing women of Washington are Obliged to
pay a tax on the water they drink to meet the
expense of laying water mains to enhance the
property of the rich, Is here proven
If the money were properly expended IL
would he outrageous to tax one class for the
benefit of another, but when II Is shown, as
this report shows, that the charge for labor In
laying water mains Is more than three times
what II should be, thereby swelling the cost
above the assessments the wrong Of making
tie poor water takers foot the bill becomes
douby outrageous. My water rent was in
creased Si.ii last year. not TO meet any just
demand upon water rents but to help pay
what capt. SymOns's report shows Is an un.
necessary cost for laying water mains.
But presume il will be said that The excess
oi cost over assessment Is caused by the eX-
pense of laying connecting mains, which
should be borne by water rents.
10 meet this objection ] have, at much
labor, separated the siX.nch mains from the
others, and have figured out their cost separ,
atcly, with the exception of few hundred
feet-thc cost of which am unable to get at,
owing TO their being included with that of
other mains.
find that as,;G2 feet of six.inch mains laid
out last year cost S3l ,2lG.65, or fraction over
Sl,0Sl per lineal foot.
ON thirty of these mains the cost of every
one exceeded the assessment, the amount of
excess footing up over $1,000.
now call your attention to capt Symons's
report, over his own signature, as published
ing me with being guilty of falschood and
SANDER In my statement of the cost of laying
water mains he proceeded to put himself on
record In the following manner:
I'm this connection II Is proper to say that
careful data kept of the cost of mains during
the past year show that the, average cost per
foot for G-inch pipe was about Is cents per
material and Labor bpa al the U current rent prices for
the, year. (See STA, and critic of August 0,
and REPUBLICAN, and Po% of August 10, isSI)
This statement, which his annual report to
you proves to be false, was published as
official, over Capt Symons's signature forty
days after the close of the fiscal year. lie
knew then as well as no. now what l. cost to Lay
careful data show the cost of G.inch pipe 10
be % 10 cents @ PEI, foot In his annual an report, report,
that the cost of laying, G,inch pipe the past
iiscal year was over S1.0S per foot, II differ
cncc Of over 33 cents per foot.
Capt. Symons stands convicted over his own
signature of making a false statement to this
community. But the falsehood published last
August answered the purpose for whichit was
coined. The city papers gave 1t a prominent
place and q wide. circulation, and the people
naturally thought, as the statement was put
forth officially, that Capt. Symons was right
and that | was wrong. Now Capt. SymOns
proves, by his own figures, that | was right
and that he was wrong
Captain SymCns's report shows that the cost
of labor for laying the said $500 feet of pipe
was Gl!BIg or fraction over 90 cents per
lneal foot. The contract price for laying six'
inch mains In 1870, when had charge of the
water office, and when mains were laid under
the direction of water board composed Of
John W. Thompson, Crosby $: Noyes, John u;
cents per lineal foot, which included every.
thing but the pipe. Daniel Hannah and John
Berry were the contractors. They laid 2i,23T
feet Of siS.inch mains that year for l6I cents
per foot. or but little more than onc.fourth of
what II has cost under Captain Symons, and
the work was well done, every piece being
care to engage in the business OF laying water
MAINS but to show that am sincere in what
say, hereby offer to enter into bonds to lay
the six;inch water mains the coming year for
onehalf what II has cost under Captain Sy-
mons, and If let out TO the lowest competent
bidder, II would be done for onc'thrd what 1t
cost last year.
The year had charge of the water depart.
ment, pipe was SIS per ton, and all other ma.
terial, as well as labor, was higher than how.
The rate OF assessments at that time wa, only
pipe Of only sSon Sf@ IS per ro on and GGt Rc rate SSU
assessment / ! cents per square foot.
laid 1929 feet of main that year with pipe
at S;sper ton for S2i,;S5.Gi, or exactly 81 cents
per lineal foot, The assessments for these
mains, at of cent per square foot, amounted
to about S30,0u0, leaving profit TO the corpo
ration of about 5000. tSee Vol. ii, journal
GSth Council)
Capt. symons last year, as his report 5 shows,
laid 2s 1Gs feet of Ginch mains, with pipe at
S35 per ton, for S3l ,slG.6i, or Si.0al per foot
pns tor only fsG Ss az makng fssts
loss to the District of S3,l5G,i3, which has to
be paid from water rents.
II seems to me your eyes ought to be opened
by this time to see that there is something
wrong In the water department. If not will
give you q few more figures.
capt. Symons attempts to explain the pres
ent condition of things by saying that mains
are now laid on both sides of the streets
whereas formerly they We're laid only In the
center of the streets; also, that recent sub
division of lots makes the number of feet as
sessable much less than formerly, there now
being two tiers of lots, one assessable ON the
front street and the other on the alley In the
rear. If this is true, then why not change the
Captain Symons proposes no remedy. Why
not al once have the, law changed, assessing
all lots by the number of front fcet That
would be a much more equitable way. The
water.nain tax on a lot of 200 feet deep by 30
feet front, at the present rate, Is SIS, All the
owner has to do before the main Is laid Is to
subdiyidc the lot and have the subdivision
recorded to escape his Waterman tax almost
entirely. suppose he makes the lot only 10
feet deep, the tax in this way would be, re-
dused from s,5 to $3,I5, These sgIbSdiylsl9ins
on other streets, have no doubt have much
to do, as Capt. Symons says, withreducing the
amount realized from assessments but they
| won't answer for q satisfying explanation of
| the present financial condition of the water
| department. They do not explain why he
made il cost last year SO cents per foot for lay
ing G'inch mains, when he could have had the
work done as well for IL cents per foot.
! have not had time to examine Capt
| SymOns's assessments very extensively, but
| the first one that meets my eye, which Is in
my own neighborhood, rerutes his theory, i
| allude to the G.inch main in the center of
| jackson alley. from North Capitol street to
| First street northeast. The main Is 80 feet
| long, There Is a double tier of lots extending
| back from II street and from q street There
are II lots on this alley that are 81 feet deep
| by 20 feet front, and lots that are 20 feet
| deep by - fee, front that are assessablc.
The lots fronting on North Capitol
| street, and first street which
are 100 feet deep, are not assessable for