The herald., 1896-11-15

and largely on the score Of economy to
the municipality and to each and every
ofttsen and taxpayer.
50. Springfield, O.. population. IS, 600:
do. A company can and does charge
exorbitant rates. The water mains are
cheaply laid, and when they have made
a good profit sell to the city at q price
generally paying q fair profit on the
first outlay.
60. Sacramento. Cal, population u.s.
900: Yes. A matter Of economy to the
people; also to prevent being subject
to a monopoly,
81. Toledo, O.. population. 10000: Yes.
Getty owns water.)
Sc. Titusville, Pa, population 5000: Yes.
Better service and satisfaction gener-
ally, with ample fire service. which
cannot be obtained, without excessive
cost, from any private company.
63. Trenton, N. j.. population. $1,000:
Yes. Our town experience shows that we
can have a low water rate ana az the
same time pay interest on bonded In
debtedness; make sinking fund as well
as extend our work out or receipts.
64. Worcester, Mass, population 3d.
900: Yes.
IS. GAINESVILLE, Ohio, population. TO-
900: Most emphatically. Chiehy tnat
the consumers may be supplied with
water at minimum OF cost.
1t will be seen by the above statements
to us, forty-nine of the cities own ana OPP
crate their water works. fifteen do not,
and two did not report on that question.
1t will also be seen that Of the sixty
six cities forty-four were favorable to
the city's owning and operating water
works, twelve are in favor OF private
companies or corporations owning and
operating same, ana ten qualify the
By reference to the said schedules filed
II will be discovered that the average
rates for water charged in cities sup
piled by private corporations are much
higher than in cities whose water and
works are owned and operated by the
cities, and In no city in the list are rates
on the average so high as in our own
beloved City Of the Angels.
Thus we see less than one-fourth OF
those who answered our inquiries be-
l,eve that water should be furnished ny
private persons, that their reasons as
signed appear to be based on the idea
that they (private parties) would save
more money than a city would, not re-
garding the fact that water would cost
consumers more.
In a letter accompanying the return
Of schedule Of questions from New York
cfty. Mr.. Thomas F. Grendey, commits
sioner Of public works Of said city, says:
1.-The reason why / consider 1t for the
best interests OF both oity and consumer
of water that the city should own and
operate the water supply is that 50 es-
sential an element to the health, well
fare and prosperity of a citys popula-
ton should not be made the subject 81
private speculation and management.
Concerning the rates in New York
city. this statement might be added:
Sinclair Oliver long resident Of New
York. but now Of this place, stated to
the chairman of your committee that the
water tax for the year on the large fam
fly hotel or boarding house whore he ID
stopping in this city is 800; that for the
same sized house. with similar equip
ment., situated in New York city, the
charges. he said. would not exceed s2S
per annum.
For further and fuller Information ref
erence may be had to said schedule on
file. Respectfully submitted,
RALPH r. HOYT Chairman.
r. EDGAR GALBRETH, Secretary.