The herald., 1896-11-28
Some Facts for the COnsidera-
ton of Taxpayers
THE PEOPLE ARE MULCTED
Where the Supply Is Controlled by Pri'
vate Corporations
The Benefits of Municipal Ownership
Set Forth in Unmistakable Terms.
The Statistics.

Quite a contrast is manifest in the
campaign methods of the Democratic
and Republican city central COM
mittees. At the headquarters Oh
the latter about all that is done
is a. great deal of Kicking, 10
use the vernacular in vogue there, at the
way this or that candidate is going about
his little still hunt for votes, whereas
the Democratic and Populist commit
tees are cooperating just like clock
work, and without hitch.
Secretaries ]. H. Melville and James
G. Clark. ir.. of the Democratic and Pop
ulist committees. respectively, are the
busiest of men these days, and are not
overlooking any good point. The former
in addition to his other burdens OF ohice'
was engaged yesterday in compiling STA
tistics from the most reliable adVlces TO
show the pecuniary value of municipal
ownership to the average resident OIL
ci+v in this broad land, Not so at the
warns of the Republican committee.
Municipal ownership seems to be the
last thing thought of there-a SUBJECT
altogether too remote for the wire pun
ers to bother their gray matter ABOUT;
The budget of information collected
by Mr.. Melville shows that in all the
cities which own and control their own
water systems the rates are low TO the
consumer and that wherever a city is
supplied by a private monopoly the con-
sumer is the victim of eXtortiona'e
rates.
AS a basis to work upon he has taken
the figures of the United States census
for fifty large cities, of which the follow
ing thirty-fve owned their water sys-
TENS: Baltimore, Binghamton, N. y;
Boston. Brooklyn, Buffalo, Cambridge,
ut NtrF linn 10
Cleveland. Davenport, Iowa; Detroit,
Evansville, Ind; Fall River, Mass.
Hartford. Conn; Holyoke, Mass; LA
Crosse Wis; Lawrence, Lowell and
Lynn, Mass; Milwaukee. Minneapolis,
Nashville, Newark, Newport, Ky; New
York, Philadelphia, Rochester, Rock
ford. Ill; St. Louis, st. Paul Sioux City,
Iowa; Taunton, Mass; Trenton. N. j.,
and Worcester Mass. The reason for
choosing this as a basis is that it can not
be challenged in case the Republicans
come out and show their true colors III
tryins, to discount the munlcipal owner
ship idea.
Now observe the rates: In New York
the annual charge for water per dwell
ing occupied by one family-meaning
house of seven rooms with one bath
room-Was only IS, but in Los Angeles
the charge was $24. This means that it
cost the New York family one-fourth
as much for water as the Los Angeles
family was forced to pay. Even San
Francisco fares better than this city,
Notwithstanding the Spring Valley
Water company there, which is hated by
everything save the Southern Pacific
and the Republican party, and which
has cost the Republican party there
more elections than any other one thing.
In San Francisco the rates were $4 less
per year. viz: $40. New Orleans, be-
cause of it's being under the yoke of
water monopoly. had to pay rate of
$25 and Dallas. EeXas. for the same rea-
son. S31. Dallas and New Orleans We're
the only cities paying the higher rates
than Los Angeles.
The low-rate paying cities next to
New York We're Baltimore and Roches-
ter 81; Brooklyn and Chicago, $S: ST.
Paul, $500; Philadelphia. Minneapolis
and Detroit, $40; Holyoke and Lynn,
Mass, Milwaukee, Rockford. ILL.,, Cleve-
land and Toledo, O., $11; Buffalo. La
Crosse. Lawrence, Mass. and Sioux City,
iowa S12. Washington. d. c., paid the
lowest, viz. $3.50, and there the federal
government owns and operates the
water system
In Chicago a tabulated statement
submitted in 1898 showed most start
ling reduction in cost to the consumer
from what was paid for 100000
gallons In 1858. The operating
cost then was $9357. In 1898 it
had been reduced to $341s. In st. Paul
in 1893 the receipts from the general as
sessment amounted to SIT, ,595.21. a lit
tie more than 81 per capita. according to
the estimate of population then The
total receipts from all sources amount
ed to 1852 442.2S and the total outlay was
$449 121.54, leaving a balance in favor
of the city of S13.32074. st. Paul secured
her water system originally for $50, 900