The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-07-27
THE wATER QUESTION.

To THE EDITOR: The great aud absorbing
question among our people is, When shall We
have an abundance of water? With the sea
washing our water front, Lake Washington on
the eastern borIer of the city, Lake On on par.
tally within our limits, and the Duwamish
river washing our southern border, why should
we be limited IN our water supply? With our
insurance rates near the point of prohibition.
our msnufactor es on short rati0ns," our hotels
and restaurants on short allowance, and the
whole people without water during the night.
this water question has assumed vast proper
tons
Private enterprise furnishes our people with
light, aud we have an abundance: individual
efors furnishes our beer. and the supply is
copious and unf=iing; private corporations
provide cur stree. railways and telephone ssry-
ice, and we are well DIVIDED. Our city council
took in hand the wafer supply year ago, and
q day we have for o population OF 5000 no
greater quantity OF water than we had on the
day of the great Gre, VITA popula ion Of 2S,-
600. With credit almost unliml ted, power and
authority ample, our municipal servants have
failed 10 give rs sny lditonsl wafer supply.
while the Spring Hill Water Company asserts
that IL could within four months after the FIRE,
or within four months after it sold its works
to the city, have laid two-foot main from It's
reservoir 10 the city, and had pumps in opera
ton sufficient TO double the supply, and that
said company In fact offered TO do SO. Our peo-
pie have twice voted almost a. q unit in favor
of the issuance Of bonds to meet the expense
necessary to pay for the works aud an Increased
supply. Large outlays have been made for en-
cheering and expenditures. and much water
pipe and some insufficient pumps have been
provided, which we are assured viii be at work
within q few days. Bat how about the enlarged
main from the reservoir to the city? A year
ago IL was conceded that such main was too
small. We have the same main today. When
H<.o la xn4o Te xs-Sk
were defects in our ordinances AMI laws when
We first voted on the question. Afterwards a
constitution was adopted and laws were enacted
by the legislature giving our city ample powers,
and after much delay Q new ordnance was en-
acted submitting the question again to our peo-
pie, and again the vote was in its favor. But
money is timid, Its owners are cautious, 1t buys
competent brains. and before purchasing our
bonds careful inquiry is made, and the
ordinance last submitting the question Is found
to be detective, glaringly so, and q case is made
to test IL In the superior court. Bat are the
facts fully submitted on the case made? Will
the decision, ii in our favor, aid US? / say that
there is not an attorney OF Ave years experience
at the bar In our city who would, on the facts
Of record touching this late ordinance, advise
his client that bonds issued under its provisions
would be valid, and IL is idle TO await the de-
cision OF the supreme court On the question.
Among the many defects suggest TWO, either
of which are fatal:
First-The ordinance estimates the cost of the
proposed water system, and also the cost Of the
sewage system-in all, &95o,001. It is entitled
''An ordinance providing for the issuance, sale
aud redemption Of bonds in the sum OF $500
for the purchase of water and to improve
the same, aud for the construction Of q sewage
system throughout the city, and providing for a
special election that the voters OF said city may
vote for or against the said proposition"
apttn A dos 4 ha 0da of md
vote must be In favor OF or against the whole
proposition for $4,000 for water and sewage
purposes.
The proposition is a double one-the estimate
is for so much for the water system, and SO
much for the seweage-in all, $4,000 The
voter could not vote for one or the other, but
such vote was for both or against both.
Section IS OF our charter provides that "No
ordinance shall contain more than one subject,
which shall be clearly expressed in its title"
In the ordinance in q .estion we have two SUBJ
jects, water and sewage, and the proposition
submitted Is joint; no doubt for that reason the
ordinance Is bad.
state dec are that such debt shall not be con-
tracted without the assent of three-ffths OF the
voters therein voting at an election TO be held
for that purpose"
TIE ordinance No. l,34s, on file as passed and
approved, conforms to the prov .slons OF the con-
eOtutlon anu laws, out as puUllSneu declares mat
II three-fths of the voters of said city shall vote
in favor, etc.; that is the ordinance as enacted,
found Oh the flies and so recorded, requires that
three-ffths of the voters voting at such election
vote in its favor 10 warrant the issue OF the
bonds while such ordinance, as published, re-
quires that three-hfths of the voters of the city
must vote in its favor 10 authorize such issue.
Section Ii providts that the ordinsnce shall
take effect and be in free from and after its
passage, approval and publication. The ordi-
nante published Is not the ordinance passed
and approved. No publication of such ordi.
nance as passed and approved has been made.
hence the ordinance as passed and approved is
not in force, was not WHEN the vote was taken.
In the face of this record, why expend money
and time in the courts with 1t. Let the error be
corrected, a proper ordinance passed, approved
and publ. shed. Oar people viii again vote in
its favor. Gentlemen OF the city government,
confess your missks. give us q single propo-
sition as well for water for sewerage let us
vote and vote at once Let Us al go 70 work
and we will succeed in accomplishing the great
object. Water will dow In abundance. and we
will be clean and happy. ]. E. LEWIS