Telegram-herald., 1890-02-16
TWO INTER VIE VS.
W r Shelby and Freeman God
frey Oh the Water Question
THEYTlLKIO The IELECRAx-HERlL
Srsaa RIVER Water aad Vegetable organ
isms Healthier Thsn spring "a lsAs
Bichixss water Nay the feepls
Aust uot ote GA Ihis Question.


ber of tie Board OF Public Works
/ Certainly not, SAID he, when asked
II he had objections 70 giving hls views,
and courteou,ly protfored the reporter
a char.
Question. "First of al, Nh. shelby
Will YOU kindly state your views on the
/ general subject as 1t now conironts the
/ people of the city,
Answer. "Myylews arc substantially
what they always have been. There IS
not, my mind, any radical objection
/ emphasizing the word radical against
the city'- transferring its plant 20 a pr.-
yate company, providing the transac-
ton were surrounded with certain linn
uauons that would forever guard the
rights and advantages OF the people Of
the city"
q. "Csn you state what tncsc hml-
tatious are, or ought TO bo"e
a. "lnasmuch as the question has
not vet come TO definite issue, have
not given Il attention enough To be able
To- set them out categoucally. They
are SIMPLY those which a prudent husi-
ness man would wish 10 see established
ln transactions of even less magnitude
than tins In general way they are
/ such matters a proper guarantees that
all promises and Obligations OF the prl-
vatc company Toe Faithfully carried out,
| that the service rendered be what the
city cannot render; the purity of d.,
water supply; satisfactory financial ar
rangemeuts. and So forth.
q. Has this always been your posi-
ton?
4. always As a taxpayer. may
even say there may be a selfish reason
why could desire to see the bonded
Indebtedness of the city shifted to
other shoulders.
q. "Have You ever stated IN any
meeting of the Board OF Public Works
that you favored the sale of the city's
plant to the Hydraulic Company
\. "Only in the sense above indl-
Gated. II. IN time past, have seemed
to favor the transfer more warmly than
10 now, Il Is not because my views
have changed, but because circum-
| stances have changed, and the facts Of
the case arc not what they seemed.
! When this question began first TO be
! moOted. there was no general under
standing that the Hydraulic Company
were to do certain definite things of q
/ highly satisfactory character and fur
/ nish large guarantees that these thing,
would be done. But it now turns
out that the company come
| forward with no such prOpO-
sitons. They certainly have not
furnished the city with better water
than the city Itself IL furnishing, and
lis proposal 10 do II IN the future - not
I of the definite character that We ought
10 have. 70 give the city pure spring
water ! hardly possible, and the fact
that the Hydraulic Company have pipes
1 running INTO the river Is confession,
even If there were absence of other
proof, that, as matter OF fact, they
are not giving their patrons, the year
round. pure earth water. The Grand
river NAV not always supply good
water. but the water the city IS now
| furnishing will compare favOrahly with
the water furnished by other citie, of
I Its size 50 where Is the advantage IN
selling TO a company TO do the same
service which the city Is doing? Most
Of the proposals made by the Hydraulic
/ Company are too vague 10 bc cOnsld-
cred Ii the Hydraulic Company take
/ the citv's plant at S6OO.0Oo il
viii have to carrya bonded indebted
/ ness which water consumers VIII have
TO pay eventually. The present interest
burdens Of the city arc not hard,hip;
/ and II thcy wc-c, the present s per
/ cent bonds VIl! shortly hcrctuudcd at :
! nor cont fo~fh,. CITY can harrow Al that