Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-02-05
Seneg M bian in the sewer Fence

may auOkt Will Us Vi any uSO w uos
-
A Senegambian in the sewer Fence.
Last evenings Express announces that
the CITY Council will again consider the
sewer bond question this morning. 1t
was intended-so said recent resolution
of the Council-to give the voters of this
city an opportunity to discriminate at
the next election, and to vote for or
against, as their judgment should die
tate, any one or more OF the three sys
! TENS for which bonds are proposed to be
| issued, to-wit: l, the internal sewer
system in the city limits; 2, the outfall
sewer from the city to the ocean at
Ballona 8. the storm sewers in the city
limits.
The three preliminary ordinances
apparently designed for that purpose
are published in the official newspaper.
From an examination of these it appears
that. whilst the proposition to vote for or
against bonds for the storm sewer sys-
tenn is fairly presented, so that voters
may properly vote for or against such
bonds without reference to the other sys-
TENS in question, the same is not clearly
sc in regard to the voting of bonds for the
internal sewer system without appa-
rently indorsing the Ballona outfall sewer,
to which the voter may we'll be opposed.
Thus we zee by inspection of the ordi-
nance in reference to the internal sewer
system of the city that the intercepting
sewers are all located specially and al
most exclusively with reference to said
Ballona outfall sewer. 1t is also we'll
known to all who are acquainted with the
geography snd topography of the city and
| it's surroundings that if the Ballone out
fall be reiected-as it probably will be-
that most of the expensive intercepting
sewers as defined in the ordinance
referred to Will be in the wrong place
for the disposal of the city's sewage ir
other directions.
Now We are informed by eminent legal
counsel OF this city that there is not and
never was any necessity for specifically
and immovsbly fixing by the ordinance
in question, or by the one to follow it,
the exact location of the intercepting
sewers required for receiving the sewage
from the different collecting sewers of
the internal city system. 1t would be
sufficient to FAY, for instance, that the
location should be as laid down in the
printed ordinance, or IN such other course
or direction as may be required for proper
connection a0ith such o1tfaU system as the
proper authorities, supported by the proper
approval Of the citizens, mag determine on.
If this qualificat ion were expressed in
the ordinance proposing the question to
the people as to favoripg the internal
city sewer system in question, the vote
would probably be generally, if not over
whelm;ngly, in favor of issuing the bonds
for the construction of this system and,
without reasonable doubt, the laborers oi
the city would at once have abundance
of work to occupy them for quite time
and money enough would be distributed
in the comm unity to make times com
para,ively lively and prosperous.
If, on the other hand, the Coun.
Gil Intentionally and openly pur.
sues the course of promising tc
give the people free choice to vote fol-
or against any one of the three systems
above referred to, and then breaks that
promise by 30 wording their ordinances
as to virtually deny that privilege of dis
elimination or selection, what conclusion
can the people draw but that such de.
vious course by the Council proves them
unworthy Of confidence? What course
can the people then take but to show
by their vote want of confidence liz
such Council?
We sincerely hope that when the mat
ter comes up this morning the Council
will take such action in the premises as
will obviaJe the Inconsistencies and diff
iculties above referred to, and really
give the voters of the city fair chance
to vote intelligently and consistently for
or against any one or more of the svs-
TENS for which bonds are to be asked.