The record-union., 1894-03-23

sho AOl1OWlus f6lO OI the wafer ordinance
recently adopted by that body:
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF rHE(
CITY OF SACRAMENTO.
SACRAMENTO, March -, 1874.
10 the Board OF city Trustees: l here
with transmit to your honorable body,
with my disapproval indorsed thereon,
Ordinance No. 337, entitled, providing
Tor the collection of water rent" My
reasons for disappearing this ordinance
are as follows:
Section / of the proposed ordinance
provides that ''all The water rent shall De
collected from the owner OF the premises
to which water is supplied by the city,"
While | admit that this is a good prOVi-
sion as to dwelling houses, L cannot see
why the same rule should apply to stores,
hotels, livery stables, etc., where the rate
may fiuctuate from month TO month. 1.-THE
ordinance submitted should become a
law, a person who resides in New FORK
and owns building in this city which is
rented as hotel would be compelled to
pay to the city the water rent OF said hotel
upon the basis of the number OF guests
entertained at it by the lessee. Ii the
owner was unfortunate enough not TO
have provision to pay the rent the
owner would be compelled to pay the
rent himself and have no chance forsre-
endorsement from the lessee.
The law in force now provides for the
person conducting the hotel to pay the
rent, and undoubtedly there are many
leases in this city based upon the as
sumption that this law would not be
changed. The same reasoning will also
apply to livery stables, saloons and stores
the tenants of which, in my opinion,
should pay the water rent. This is for
the reason that different stores will use a
different amount OF water, and conse-
quently different rate should be col
lected.
Section of the proposed ordinance
provides that the water rent shall be
collected monthly in advance for ali per-
mits exceeding 50 per month. and quar-
terly in advance for all permits for 30 or
less per month"
This section is an exact copy of the pro-
visions found in Ordinance y o. 240, which
is nov in force, but as it was found i'm
practicable, and a hardship upon great
number OF our people to enforce this pro-
vision. the same has never been done.
If this provision of the law is enforced
there is no necessity Tor Te-enacting the
same matter in new ordinance, and
thereby crowding the records and ordi-
nance books with unnecessary pro-
visions.
Section Iof the proposed ordinance
provides that the wafer shall not be re-
stored TO any premises, when shut off as
provided III this ordinance; unless the
pipe leading thereto is directly connected
with the city mains, and uncOnnected
with any other service pipe leading 10
any other premises, and except on pay
ment OF all arrearages and the additional
sum OF So for shutting off and letting on
the water; provided, that in case of pow
erty, the Hoard of Trustees may remit
the said additional sum OF 50.
This section charita bly, proposes that in
case Of poverty the sum of 50 for shutting
of and letting on the water may be re-
United. But ut the same time the poor
man who unfortunately may be unable
to pay his water rate in advance at the
required time, would be compelled to lay
new pipe to the main. 1t would seem,
therefore. that when we compare the cost
OF laying Il new pipe with the sum of So,
the provision OF remitting the 50 in case
OF poverty IS not, after all, much consola-
ton TO poor person.
Section D OF the proposed ordinance
provides: IF any person refuse to allow
the City Taper TO enter upon the prem
ises of said person for the purpose of dis
connecting the Service pipe of dein-
QueDt water taker from the service pipe
OF said person, the City Taper shall i'm
medlately cause the water to be shut Off
from the premises of the person so refus-
ing in the manner provided for shutting
of water from delinquent water taker,
and said person shall thereafter in all re-
spects be deemed to be and treated as
delinquent water taker."
Although city, in the exercise of its
police power, has great deal of authority
for the purpose Of performing its func-
tions and administering its affairs, still /
have some doubts whether or not the
power is so great as to permit the city to
tear up one mans grounds for the pur-
pose OF Furnishing another, who is delin-
quent Tor his water rent. 1t would seem
that when man, under existing laws,
builds a house, improves his premises
and plants valuable plants, etc, and pays
his water rent, he should be protected in
the exercise and management Of his
property. In my judgment, it is unrea-
sonable for the city or anyone else to en-
ter upon his grounds, and possibly dig
up flowers and shrubbery, for tie pur-
pose of compelling his neighbor to pay
his water rent. II must be reinemb bered
that, in the past, houses have been built
on the same block the water to which is
supplied by one pipe from the main, with
branches OIL 10 different houses. The
law did not prohibiu such practice then,
and certainly if it is desired TO change
this practice, the same should be done
without hardship to innocent people.
/ think the same result can he obtained
as is desired by Section ) by entering
upon the grounds of the delinquent per-
son and digging up the pipe on his
ground, cutting il in two and plugging it.
This certainly will disconnect his pipe
and prevent linn from obtaining water,
and surely does not harm his neighbor in
any way.
The reasons above given firmly con-
vince me that the ordinance proposed is
not a proper one for our city. Respect
fully submitted,
b. U. STEINMAN, Mayor.
DEM FELL AMONG THIEVES.
x.,.. a1,,, Isro,,, Sy,aSf, F.taaca.i ~