The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-11-03
VOW. DOESN'T rrs

The people OF Seattle should clearly IN
dsrstand how IL is going TO affect them
e they vote IN tavor Of adding s1.z5o.ooo TO
the city dabt. Work.ngmen stand idly or
the sidewalk because we are sending $50
day IA interest out Of the city. Enter
prise f. checked because the owners OF
property, from the heavily mortgagei
brick block 70 the three-room cottage. are
taxed TO the last dollar. And now Il Is
proposed 10 add 500 a Gay more. making
so a day. s., go a month, :Si2 go year.
n interest alone!
No man VIII deny that the city should
secure control o. the Cedar river supply.
But we don't need It now. we viii not
need IL for years. ard II IS the erassest
folly 10 spend one million and quar-
ter dollars for which we must pay $4,000
interest a year for five. six. possibly ten
years before we are compelled 10.
Is II possible that in all the legislative
wisdom OF the bl-eameral council. with It's
doable-heaaed presidency and is novenary
membership In each house, no scheme can
be devised BY which the city's rights can
be asserted and lel9 for few years with
out an expenditure uselessly OF 500 day
for from 1--WE 10 ten years?
One OF their number, shrewdly discern
ing novel and attractive method Of adj
yert.sing. raises a cry, and the res: fail
into Inc With pengain steps. Ike a pha-
lanx OF clchlomorphic passerines. So as
founding vas the proposition that the
Spokane newspapers COULDN'T believe but
there was a JOB IN T. or course, that is
not 50; the only object-and tina; is mer-
itorlous enougn-is 20 prevent private
ownership Of the source OF supply
Where is the corporation counsel. the
assistant corporation counsel, the city at
torney, the representative of the law de-
partment before the municipal court?
Cannot they suggest a way by which the
city can secure its rights to a flow Of wa
ter without swapping Us in debt?
When the city found 1t necessary to take
the water supply out Of the hands of
private corporation. it simply did it. and it
didn't pay the price demanded by that cor
poration. either. IL is even a question
whether the city paid a fair price for it.
il win be conceded that the city does not
want TO be placed in such d position. But
it can condemn or buy rights along the
course OF the river which would stop any
private corporation from securing a mon
opoly. y man may sit On the top Of bar
rel a long time before he can slake his
thirst; II Is the man at the sp.got who
gets away with the refreshment
The defenders Of the scheme to rush
into another gigantic debt say It win be
paid for ont Of the proceeds OF the water
service. That's all we'll enough. but cur
experience IS that the money needed to
pay city debts always comes out OF the
pockets Of the people. and the poorer a
man Is the heavier his proportion. If the
revenues Of the water service are 10 be
taken to pay for the Cedar river scheme.
who VIII supply the money 20 repay the
debt of 100000 we already owe for our
present water plant? That debt calls for
a special levy OF 81 mills taxation per an
mum with which 10 meet the interest. BY
making the system pay It's own way, as
it does now, IL was necessary last year
only to levy 1850 mills. or little over half.
II was the original plan 10 apply the sur
pius revenue 70 paying or the present
debt. but II that IS taken to pay the new
debt. Of course the taxes must be In
creased.
Doesn't Il seem a rational common sense
proposition that this city. with all is am
pie constitutional and statutory powers.
should bo able now TO command It's future
water supply by the exercise OF legal rights
without plunsing this tax-hurdeGed, bond
laden. interest bleeding community into
another maelstrom Of debt ten years ahead
/ ef its uecessit-vsr