The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-02-26

can be duplicated for $500. 900, accord
ing to the city's position, taken in the
present water committees report This
admission shows that the water COM
pany knows that the plant can be du-
plicated for 5000 900, but, of course, is
not willing to take that amount because
it thinks that it has a .cinch' on the
people. Then the president farther on
finds fault with the assessment of the
water plant and complains that il is
s100 900 higher than that of the silver
smelter. This may be true or not, but
if the president of the water company
will take the silver smelter and COM
pare its position in other respects with
the water company, it will be
readily seen that the silver smelter
is of ten thousand times more benefit
to the city from a monetary point of
view than the water system and its
management. The silver smelter is en-
ploying from 200 to 300 men and assist
ing in distributing wealth throughout
the city and endeavoring to carry on its
business. with silver at a very low
price, and using all it's energy to be of
benefit to the city as well as making a
small profit out of it's investment. The
silver Smelter is many times running
at a loss in order to keep up the cour-
age of the silver miners of the state
until such time as silver can be re-
stored to it's proper place, while the
boasting of his opposition to silver and
asserting the fact that it Is immaterial
to him what the price of silver is, for
he has a business in which the number
of laborers employed is three and out
of which his net profits are equal If
not greater, than any other investment
in the state of Montana. There are but
few investments in America in which
the labor employed consists of but
three or four men, where the net profits
amount to $4,000 or $35, 900 every year.
1t happens that the water company of
this city is one of the these favored in
situations.
There are great many reasons why
investments like the silver smeter
ought to be assessed less than invest
ments like the water company. Fur
Their on we find other comparisons
given to show that the company has
been unfairly treated But in asking
that the assessment be left where 1T
was before this agitation came up
seems the fairest way of disposing of
the question. Tt seems from this that
the agitation is disturbing the water
company in some way. If the agitation
has been a benefit to the taxpayers,
further agitation would be a greater
benefit to the citizens and this agitation
should be kept up until the whole water
system is in absolute control of the
city. The communication further says,
The company understands that the
resolution would not bind future coun-
ellis to live up to this agreement but
with a clause inserted in the resolu-
ton that, in the event of any agita-
ton on the councils part, the company
would be released from its agreement
to deposit the annual payment of S2,6S2,
seems to the water company a Suffl-
cient protection This is indeed ride
ulous proposition and simply confirms
what / have heretofore stated. That
this amount is offered to the city coun-
ell to keep still and say nothing, and
if the offer is not accepted and if the
future councils do not keep STILL, then
it is not a go. How long will the city
continue to banter with such trifiing
propositions? Cannot they see that 1t
is only another device for delay and
complications? Has the president OF
the water company ever manifested
such patriotism and loyalty to the city
that he would willingly give up $2,6S2
for the benefit of the city? No, he has
simply used all the arts and devices
he possesses to continue burden upon
the city that ought not to be longer en-
dured. He has endeavored to mould
public sentiment through the public
press against the ownership of the
water works by the city and the peo-
pie see this and know the offers made
/ by Phelps are not fair ones and are
not to be believed in by great num-
Der of people.
Last year / was opposed to the law
suit that the city brought upon itself
by refusing to pay the rental. | be-
lieve it was ill-advised. and believed
then and believe now that the city
should own its own water works. and
If ii cannot purchase the present sys-
TEN as recommended by the members
of the committee, that ii proceed at
once with the construction of plant
of it's own and let Mr.. Phelps man.
age the present system to his own
sweet Will.
Il can readily understand why the
Great Falls Leader is trying to defend
Phelps position. Mr.. Phelps owns and
controls the paper The reason why
the Tribune supports Mr.. Phelps posi-
tion is doubtless because of some
friendship existing between the pres
ent owners and Mr.. Phelps, and the
public readily understands this, and on
this question they do not give any
greater weight to the individual opin-
ions of the men who write editorials for
the Tribune than to the opinions of
other citizens publicly and privately ex-
pressed. This is small trick on MIR.
Phelps part to try to mould public
sentiment in support of his proposition
that he is Offering to the city, but it
will not work There is a great deal
vested and property rights and all this.
The city is not endeavoring to take one
cent from Mr.. Phelps or his investment
unlawfully, nor is it trying to annul
the contract 1t is simply trying to get
what every city in America should
have, the ownership of its own water
system. IF, however. any argument
can be suggested in behalf of the pres
ent water company on the score of
vested rights the silver smeiter would
have as much right to ask the city or
the county of Cascade, now that silver
is not one-half as high as when the
smelter was built, TO protect it's vested
right and make up to it what it has
lost by silver declining in value, as
would Phelps have TO ask the city to
pay him a great deal higher price than
it would cost TO duplicate the plant.
The city ought to be aetuated in this
matter by the same motives that con-
troll private individuals. If any citi-
4 70 aag,s