Los Angeles herald., 1890-06-12

Otis moved to reconsider, and when the
matter came before the chamber again
he moved that the report be adopted,
and its views, which called for the own
ership of the water system by the city,
be indorsed.
On this motion long and spirited de-
bate took place. Captain Barrett de-
clared that there was not money enough
in possession of the city to effect the
purchase of the water system, and no
way to raise the amount by voting
bonds. Under the circumstances even
if the city's ownership of the system
was advisable it was not practicable. 1t
was well known that a prominent cap
italist of Los Angeles, J. F. Crank, was
in the east negotiating to bring money
out here to establish system to bring
mountain water into the city in large
quantities at reasonable rates. Action
by the chamber might hamper this un-
dertaking just as action by the chamber
on a previous occasion with regard to
the Scott-Marble franchise had proved
injurious.
M. L. Wicks told the story of his ex-
perience in the water business, and how
he had found it impossible to place
bonds for a mountain water company,
for the reason that capitalists feared in
reference with rates on the part of the
city. City water works meant river
water, as the city had no other to offer.
Nothing but private enterprise would
ever bring mountain water into the city.
Engineers stated that the mountain
water would bring force of !, 900 horse
power, which would have decidedly
stimulating effect upon manufacturing
industries. The zanja system with
which the city has experimental, had
been net loss to the city thus far of
half million of dollars.
Major E. w. Jones left the chair to be
occupied by Hervey Lindley, while he
took part in the discussion. He de-
Tended the zanja a system which, although
it might have cost the city considerable
money, was nevertheless of infinite
benefit to the residence section. Private
ownership of water supply was con-
demned in all the larger cities and gen
orally abandoned. ii private capital
was to supply water, why should it not
pave streets and build the city hall?
L. N. Breed said that there was
enough water in the river to irrigate
most of the land between here and
Santa Monica, and there was no reason
why mountain water should not be sup
piled for drinking purposes, if the citi-
zens wished it,
T. G. Naramore thought that Los
Angeles had outgrown the necessity for
foreign capital. In any event, why
not have the city make profit off
the water supply as well as private
company. Captain A. w. Barrett called
attention to the fact that the city had to
pay three prices for all the labor which
it had done, and could not possibly
carry on the business as cheaply as a
private company, w. E. Hughes gave
ex-Councilman Book as authority for the
statement that the city could raise bonds
to an unlimited amount for water pur-
poses. He quoted the experience of
various eastern cities in the matter.
A vote was then taken by which the
report of the committee favoring the
city's ownership of water works carried
! by about a two-thirds majority.
Major E. w. Jones then produced a
document which he said he had received
from General Vandever, which he had
no doubt was from him, although the
signature was accidentally omitted. In
private letter General Vandever had
suggested that it be read to the cham
read by Secretary Patton, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. s.,
WAsHNGroN, D. c., May 20, 1890.
Major E. W. Jones, President Chamber
Of Commerce, Los 4ngeles, Cal.
DEAR SRA batch of building
bills was called up in the house today by
the committee on public buildings and
passed under special order, which au-
thorized the chairman OF that commit
tee to call up bills of this character for
consideration. | regret to say that the
Los Angeles bill was not among the
number designated by that committee
for favorable consideration. l under
stand from Colonel Markham, who is
| here, that letters from Mr. Clunie, to a
certain Los Angeles party, represent
that the delay in action regarding the
Los Angeles bill is owing to my negli-
gence in not asking for its favorable con-
sideration by the house. The fact is the
Los Angeles bill was the first California
bill introduced at the commencement of
the present session, but the San Jose,
the Stockton, the Sacramento and the
San Francisco bills were reported from
the committee and placed on the calen-
dar ahead of the Los Angeles bill, and |
do not hesitate to say that the
responsibility for the preference which
has been given these other bills lies
wholly with Mr.. Clunie, who, being a
member of the public buildings commit
tee, has succeeded in having our bill
postponed until the bills for public
buildings in the central part of the state
have been considered. Mr.. Clunie
claimed to have desire to promote the
passage Of the Los Angeles bill, but his
action has been in the opposite direction
and there is no Disgusting the fact that
he has been the chief obstacle in the
way of an early consideration of the Los
Angeles bill. In addition to this have
reason to believe that he has maintained
correspondence with parties in Los
Angeles, possibly with some members O
your board, looking to a change of loca
ton for the building. Candor compels
me to make this statement, in order tha
you may understand upon whom rest!
the responsibility for the delay. / ex
pect the passage of the Los Angeles bill
during the session, but | am none tn,
less indignant at the kind OF partisanshil
which postpones every interest of South
ern California to the projects of othe
parts OF the state. Colonel Markham il
here, and understands that no effort O
mine has been Sparp1 tO oct tho addi