Morning journal and courier., 1891-12-01

sion lasting an hour and half at which every one who desired to be heard on the question was given full and ample op- portunity so to do, the board voted not to consider the original vote by 8 vote of IS to g, and the report as amended and &C., cepted at the previous meeting stands.
 Shortly after Chairman Callahan had called the meeting to order Alderman Daley rose and asked that the question of the water contract might be taken up in- stead of occupying the time of the board with the transaction of other less import ant business which could be transacted at some future meeting, and the board voted so to do.
 Alderman Hamilton then arose and stat ed that he had seen the statement made in print and also had heard it from other sources that the matter had been rushed through the board without giving every one fair hearing in he matter. ''For my part" he said, 'I am willing to stay here tonight until midnight, aye, even until o'clock tomorrow morning if necessary in order to hear all the arguments which can be made pro and con in this matter; only let us have it all now and have an end of all complaints that the matter has been rushed through this board, and let us set tle the question finally tonight"
 Alderman Daley then argued in favor of making the contract with the water company, advancing practically the same arguments made by him at the former meeting, and claiming that if the contract was good for two years at $20, ,O00 per year, as it evidently was in the minds of the committee, seeing that they recom- mended it, then it was better for the city to make the contract tor ten years, as dur ing the succeeding eight years there would undoubtedly be more water neces- l sary to supply the municipal wants of the city than during the first two years. Alderman Avis in reply claimed that the committee did not think ten years con- | tract good for the city nor did they con- sider the price equitable, but that the con- mittee recommended the contract for two years simply to give the city chance in the interim to secure proper legislation looking toward the purchase of the water company's plant by the city.
 Alderman Chandler stated that the fact the contract is made with the water con- pany for ten years does not debar the city at any time during that term from notifying the company that they desired to buy the plant and taking any action having that end in view. The present existing contract, he said, expressly stipulates that the contract | shall be made for ten years, and the price | adjusted every ten years, and it was not legal or fair to attempt to make any less contract with the company. The Water company, he further said, has received no valuable franchises from the city, but has received all it's franchises from the legisla- ture and not from the city.
 Alderman Sonnenberg argued that a | contract with free water and free taxes would give universal satisfaction to the people of the city, and that if it were pos sible to save the city $1OO,O0O during the next ten years, it was the duty of the board of aldermen. the represen tatives of the people, to do so. Let us look around, he said, and see if during the next few weeks or months we cannot devise some such plan. We can accept the amendment of the alderman from the Second at any time, but we ought at least to make the effort have spoken of.
 Alderman Hitler argued that he had made the motion to reconsider in order tC l give the next court of common council an opportunity to deal with the question and perhaps to make & contract. Another req. son he advanced was that he was of the opinion that many people favored free
 taxes in return for free water and that the
 motion was made to reconsider in order tc
 give all an opportunity to debate the ques
 tion on it's merits.
 Alderman Daley announced himself as
 opposed to the swapping process-free
 taxes for free water. We here, he said, to do business in a legitimate man ner, and not to swap jack-kniv or de business like second-han clothing dealers
 If the water i. worth $20,000 for two years it is worth it for the eight years longer. If the water company does not
 as it is claimed, pay sufficient taxes, i
 certainly lies in the power of the city tc
 put up the valuation of property and com l pei it to pay the taxes thereon, but yol m ust remember that thousands of dollar ; worth of their property lies outside th' | city limits. If the contract for the pas
 ten years at $16,00 was good thing fo
 the city, when we consider the growth O. the city s20, 900 is an extremely low pric,
 for the next ten years.
 Alderman Hamilton still further en
 frightened the members of the board il
 reference to the matter by stating that i } was perfectly clear that at any time dur
 ing the continuance of the contract tn, |: city could take steps to secure suitable
 legislation toward obtaining the plant ant franchises of the water company. If the
 contract is not made with the water com pany, he stated, the company has the righ by the terms of the existing contract tt | apply to the supreme court and have thre, dislnterested persons appointed to act a
 arbitrators between the city and the com l pany to the price to b. paid for water
 and We will, 1 believe, have then to pay
 considerably more than we are now ask ed The present price is considerably below tht ratio of the old contract The company ap
 pointed by the supreme court wouLi proba
 ply place the figures at at least $22, 900 wheI
 they took into consideration the growtt ) of the city. From what I have been able
 'o learn there is at present very few, il l n fha n who Iaoiro tn I1
 anything further in the matter of expert
 menting with the municipal or politica
 control of the water works. The city ha,
 no power to grant any franchises It il
 itself created by the legislature and tht
 thing created cannot of itself create. Ths
 matter cannot go over to the next cour
 of common council. All committee mat
 ters die with this board. A new commit I tee on water will be created next year and
 if no contract is made now, nothing will
 probably be done in the legislature o
 the city all next year except the l discussion of the water contract. I hop.
 now nobody will ever again have anything l to say about this matter having been rush
 ed through. The question has now beer
 thoroughly discussed by every member ot
 the board who desired to be heard upon
 the subject. The question of municipa
 ownership of the waJerworks has onct
 been referred to the public and by then
 overwhelmingly rejected.
 Alderman Kelly stated that his reason
 for voting not to reconsider were as fol
 lows: When the first contract was made ten years ago the price for water per capi
 ta was 25 cents, which in later years dwin
 dled down to IS cents, now at $20, 900 ii will be about 23 cents per capita, but vii
 probably hereafter be reduced by the in, crease in population to IS cents. I vott for the contract because I believe the in
 terests of the city demand it. We have go
 to make some contract and it seems to me to be preferable to make it for the longer term than for the shorter.
 Alderman Johnson argued against mak
 ing the contract and said that the presiden
 of the Water company had stated that tn, company would not accept any report tn, committee might make. ''If," he said "the purchase can be made at any time why not do it now' Why do the cham pions of the Water company so strenuous ly oppose the order to purchase thu plant9'
 Alderman Chandler, in answer to Alder man Johnson's question, said: I shall op
 pose the order because when it came ul before the board in the mayors message il was voted down by this board and so voted