The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1892-05-13

water committee should refrain from
letting the people know what the proposed
water works will cost, and refrain from
giving some substantial assurance that
another special election will not be nee
essary to complete the works2
So
On October l4th, 1891, at ..the meeting
held in Robbins hall, Borough Solicitor
Pomeroy stated that the result of the
special election held in 1881, whereby the
people of this borough authorized the
Borough Council to increase the public
debt to $4,000 to create public wster
works, "holds good TO this day and the
Borough Council can act on it."
~
The court decided that Mr.. Pomeroy
was wrong and that the election did not
hold good.
At a meeting of the Borough CouRcil on
December 3, 1891, Councilman Lamb
stated, "We haye taken steps towards
issuing bonds and we will, in a day or SO,
ask for bids for constructing and laying
pipes"
Why does not Mr.. Lamb let the people
know what those bids are?
So
The Joint committee had published in the
papers of town an official communication
signed by its twelve members, headed by
Mr.. Lamb, and among other things that that
communication stated, "We have carefully
considered everything and arrived at the
conviction hat the above sum, viz SIS, 0C0,
| will pay for the whole concern"
~
Why, then, are the people asked for
$95, OOO2
At a meeting of the joint committee on
May 2, 1892, A. b. Lamb stated that the
$45, 600 granted under the special election
OF II years ago had stood in the way of the
committee and the only way by which the
committee could proceed was by the course
it had taken, to force the water company to
take the matter into court and have a
judicial determination on the old special
election.
Compare this statement with the follow
ing extracts;
From the Joint Committee official letter OF
December IL, 1891 Has the borough a right to
| contract such a debt and is the vote taken ten
years ago stiu valid The water company says
that we are to care for those that live now, not
for those that lived ten years ago, We have a
slight suspicion that the water company will
find that a much greater percentage OF those
that lived ten years ago are still alive and more
active than they care for. In regard to the
legality OF the vote, we have the opinion and
advice of the Borough Solicitor and other
eminent lawyers"
-
Also compare Mr.. Lambs statement at
the joint committee meeting on May I'd
with Mr.. Pomeroy's statement in Robbins
hall and with the following statements
made at the Council meeting of January
7, 1892;
BIZ M. Lamb: ''They knew then that we
had S45, 900 already
By Mr.. james; "This committee does not
propose to spend $4,000 without asking the
people permission to spend the difference be-
tween Sl5, 900 and Sl25, 200. They have said, and
did say ten years ago, that the borough debt
could be Increased $4,000. We have been
authorized by good legal talent that that stands
good and we have a right TO go ahead and
expend that money for that purpose
50
After such a pot-pouri of mistakes as
shown by the above quotations, are people
going to vote blindly to put $4,000 in the
hands of this battle-door and shuttle-cock
crowd2
-
Again we ask, what will the water works
cost