The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1892-08-26
LIGHT AND VA TEB- QUESTION.
CORVALLIS, Or, Aug. %.

Dotrant that the question
Of city Improvements, to be
voted on August 30, should be
and understood and l
venture a few remarks on the sub
Ject,lf you can spare me necessary
space.
There are some considerations
why it seems impracticable, un-
and not to the best
interests Of any city to own its
public works. Some persons ad-
vance good reasons showing that
the Capitalization of power i'll the
hands of government has a demor-
alizing tendency. Then there are
various other reasons along this
line which are all more or less
good and sensible. On the other
side of the question there are con-
siderations. which seem to me at
this time to make it more import
ant TO Corvallis and her immedi-
ate future to own and control her
electric light and water plants and
operate them in unison, and to
have a sufficient system of sewer
age which, once constructed, will
be easily kept in proper condition
at no additional expense, if the
city owns its own water. l don't
think we are yet ready for a
bridge, or at least do not think the
city should issue any bonds for
that purpose.
The very first thing to be taken
into consideration in regard to
water and light plants, it seems to
me, is the relations existing be-
tween the present proprietors OF
the plants established here and
the city. By the city | mean the
citizens of Corvallis. 1t is all very
well to say the city did this or that
or the other, but as a matter ot
fact it is the citizens, those who
vote and whose duty it is to vote
on these questions, who occupy
the relation TO these corporations
which is expressed by the WORD
t"City." To be palmer and more
explicit, when | say "city" | NEAR
every citizen whose duty it is tc
vote on these questions. The cleo
trio light company and the water
company have both obtained fran
Ichises from the city, have invest.
ed capital i'll these enterprises and
there is an implied compact be.
tween the city and the persons
who have thus invested their cap.
ital to protect that capital
Whether the franchises be exclu
sive or not does not alter the case
so far as an implied protection o1
that capital is concerned. The
persons who invested in these en-
Iterprises could not expect any pro
lection from the city more than
their franchises give, but taking
into consideration the size and
prospective growth of Corvallis,
there could have been no great
apprehension in the minds of i'll.
vestors that rival private enter
prises of similar nature could seri-
ously jeapordize their capital after
being invested. The laws OF sup
ply and demand, and the we'll
known rules which govern the in
vestment of capital put.the danger
of any private rivalry out of the
question. But that the city should
conceive the idea OF owning and
controlling its own works of pub
lie nature probably never entered
the minds of the persons who have
developed these enterprises to
their present value. III am cor
rect in this position, do not the
persons who have their capital in
vested in these works have a SUBJ
stantial right to be considered in
an election, which, if it results one
way, will give persons, having nc
substantial rights involved, the
power to seriously jeapordize the
value of their security? Ii the
voters should say, in the event
that they should desire the city to
own these plants, first give the
present companies a chance to save
their capital by selling to the city
at the reasonable value of their
works, for instance, at its actual
ooct vaIua tban T do nof Saa where