The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-23
A BOOMERANG CIRCULAR
SENT OUT ANONYMOUSLY. AND PUR-
PORTS TO SHOW WATER RATES.
Evidently from the Indianapolis
Company-Rates Really Higher
Here than in Other Cities.

While the assertion has been made that
the Council has no right to regulate rates
charged by the Indianapolis Water Com
pany without the consent of the company.
it does not seem to want to run chances.
and is making efforts to have the ordinance
defeated. There Is being circulated among
members of the Council an anonymous COM
pilation showing the rates paid in twenty
six cities of the United States from Albany.
n. ", TO Los Angeles, Cal, for water in
a six-room residence. The compilation is
typewriter on plain paper not showing
whence it emanates but Councilman Little,
the author of the ordinance recently intro
duced reducing rates 30 to so per cent. said
when he was informed that it was being cir
culated that he had no doubt of it's source
The tables given show that the average in
the twenty-siX cities named is $51S a year
for six-room residence, while in Indianap-
oils it is but 81.
THE statement that the rate here is "a
a year is false" said Mr.. Little. ut is Sc
a year" He took down bound copy of the
ordinance passed by the Council in 1872,
which shows that the rate for six-room
house is IS, but the rates were only to gov
ern for one year after their acceptance by
the company. The company afterward duly
accepted the ordinance, and the rates for
private consumption have remained the
same ever since, Mr.. Little says. In 1895,
however, there was contract made be-
tween the city and the water company with
reference solely, Mr.. Little says, to the
rates the city should pay. That contract
expired Jan. /, 1897. but it's conditions still
prevail. That contract had nothing to do
with the rates to private consumers, and
Mr.. Little has been unable to find any evil
dence that the private rates were ever
changed since 1872 From the fact that the
rates fixed at that time were fixed by the
Council at the request of the company Mr.
Little argues that the company must have
known at that time that the Council had
jurisdiction over the matter If it had juris-
diction then he says that he cannot see why
1t has not now. This may account for the
company's activity in getting figures before
the Council purporting to show that the
rate here is lower than the average in
.twenty-six other cities. Mr.. Little does not
accept the statement as conclusive He has
not seen a copy of the typewriter circular.
However, he is himself at work securing
data as to what is paid in other cities. and
thinks when it is obtained that it will throw
an entirely different light on the subject
The circular does not state that the cost
is that for sx-room houses, but that in
formation is vouchsafed by word of mouth
by the company's representative. A Jour
cular yesterday, but could not obtain from
the councilman who showed it any Informal
ton from whence it came.
From the fact that it shows the average
to be $l.18 higher in other cities than in
Indianapolis, said he, Il judge that it
comes from the Water Company If Mr.
Little is correct in saying that the Indian
apolis rate is So yearly instead of "a, the
rate here is 81 cents higher than the
average instead of s1.1S lower The circu-
lar also purports to give additional in
formation with regard TO other charges the
consumer pays in some of the cities. 1t
reads es follows:
Water cost for small house in the fol-
lowing cities as follows Detroit "a; col
lected S75,554 in taxes to support the water
department and abutting property owners
assessed the cost of the pipe: Cincinnati,
$3.50 taxation S226 on the $780, Syracuse
So; Rochester. 81; Milwaukee (Milwaukee0
IS; charges 221a cents each side of the
street when small pipe are laid; Albany
$3.50; Boston, 49, no pipe laid that does not
pay per cent. Of the cost of it; Chicago,
ST. cost of the mains" charged to the prop
erty holders; Providence, IS; Philadelphia
each side: Cleveland, SO. so. taxation 81. 20 on
the $1C0; St. Paul. &c. add to this the 'front.'
age tax 10 cents d foot; Washington, $3.50
supported by the government; Allegheny
$725; Richmond. S. Kansas City, $780,
Lowell, Sc: Cambridge, "a; Jersey City. $7.15;
Buffalo, $40, taxes vacant lots and col
lects from the public $4,000 to support the
water department; Toledo. s., taxation 50.
on the 800; Toronto. $3.50; Erie So; Grand
Rapids, 81: Scranton, Sc; Los Angeles, $3.50;
average, SIS. 49, Indiana polls 81.