The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-12-10
STATUS OF THE WATER QUESTION:

Seattle. Dec. :, 1885
To the Editor-It IS admitted that the
city now has an ample supply OF good,
pure water: capacity CT 19.g0o, 90 gallons
per day, which is 3oa0. zoo 70 4,ooe,eo9 gal
Ions more than the daily consumption. and
which can Be easily and cheaply increased
4 necessary. Il IS admitted that the water
Is being furnished now n Seattle as cheap
IS for manufacturing purposes as & IS N
other Western cities for Ike purposes, and
that, too az profit 10 the city. II IS ad-
mitted that We are not in condition 10
assume An additional expense OF sl,25o,eoo.
Then why should We now bl.nd.y heap upon
the people this additional burden? And
especially upon the water consumers alone2
II IL has TO be done. why should not all
who are benefited be compelled TO share
this additional expense?
IL is admitted that the city now owns
and controls lis water works and supply
What sense is there IN this hue and cry
about the city being al the mercy Of a corr
poration? How is the city going TO he
placed al ths mercy OF the water power
company or any other corporation? Does
any one suppose for minute that the
present city council or any other city coun-
ell is going 10 turn over or sell out the
present water works to the power COM
pany, or contract with said power COM
pany 10 furnish water TO the city without
vote of approval by the people OF Seat
tAS. III lHs luGSEtltliL C-sy COGA-
Gil would dare think of doing such thing,
and unless that is done, how can the city
be placed at the mercy OF any corpora
ton? Can. this power company, or any
other corporation lay a foot Of pipe or
brFhg gallon OF water into the city with
out first getting a franchise from the city
so 10 do? Does not every ordinance grant
ing franchise have TO lay over thirty
days after being introduced before being
passed? Does any one suppose that the
IL out?
1t IS also admitted tha, the city to get
control OF the water right fled on by the
power company IN Cedar river and the
lakes must condemn under the state law
and the right be appraised by jury. If
the city can do that now, why can IL not
do it in ten years from now, or twenty
years from now, when ii is better able 10
pay, and when there is some necessity for
doing so? The argument that in ten or
twenty years from now the city would
have TO pay millions, whereas now IT Will
only have TO pay thousands, has no
weight, for its value then viii be appraised
by King county jury just as now, and if
jury in ten or twenty years from now as
sesses the damages at more than jury
would now, it is because the property and
rights would be made worth more. 1t IS
acknowledged everywhere that private en-
terpr.se can do work cheaper than mu-
nicipal corporation. But in my humble
judgment, there is no danger OF the city
having TO condemn and buy these righ>s
in ten or twenty years from now. Does
any one suppose that the gentlemen COM
posing this water power company are a lot
of idiots? Do they suppose that this COM
pany Is going ahead 10 expend a million
or two OF dollars bringing water 10 the
corporate limits Of Seattle without first
getting franchise from the city TO enter
with the same; without getting a contract
TO furnish the city with water? Do thy
suppose that this company would be fools
enough 70 expend this large sum Of money
and depend alone upon furnishing the
dredging company with little water 10
flush out the south canal. and upon a few
small manufacturing plants TO repay them
for this outlay? How can they get their
water into the city for these manufacturing
plants without the consent OF the city?
All this slush about being left to the
mercy Of corporation is the merest bosh,
only intended to scare voters into voting
for this preposterous proposition to make
the water consumers of the city alone pay
for a permanent improvement that ought
to be paid for by all benefited. The ques-
ton to be settled Tuesday. December
10, is not do we want 10 be left to the
mercy OF a greedy corporation" as some
insist, nor simply, "Do we want Cedar river
water?' as Judge Jacobs insists; but rath-
err, do we want Cedar river water now?
Is the emergency so great that we must
have IL now My humble vote on Decem-
Der 10 shall answer no" While we all
look intimately to Cedar river for our
water supply. we can in ten or twenty
years get 4 Just as we can get ii now, by
condemning Il and paying for what we get.
Respectfully, J. NJ. CARSON.