The Advocate and news., 1898-11-09

some time in opposition to the issuance
Of bonds He said:
"'The thing should like to know is
whether the resolution gives the council
power to Issue $4,000 bonds to either
purchase the present plant or build a
new one, or to place 1t In a position
to deal effectively with the present COM
pany in arranging satisfactory rates. We
are just getting through with consider
able indebtedness on account Of paving.
It seems to me that 1t Is foolish to burden
ourselves with 100000 Of bonds in order
to do things ourselves which we can ar
range to have done for us. l think these
public utilities, as they are called, you
can usually get done for you reasonably
and without incurring a burden OF any
kind. l feel that 1t would be better to
bond ourselves only for the things we
cant have done, instead Of bonding our
selves for something that can be done for
us and at the same time stimulate pri
Vate enterprise. II we issue these bonds
! 1t will be q long time before we can for
get them, and they will stare us In the
face every time the city takes up any
question OF improvement firmly be-
lieVe that 1t is serious mistake for us
to multiply public offices l hope to live
to see the day when there will be only
half as many public officers as there
are at present 1t Is the curse Of our pO-
litical system, and why we should in
crease the number by municipal owner
ship Of public utilities / can't understand.
If we could vote these bonds in such
way as to place the council in position
to deal effectively with the Eastern bond
holders and to arrange for the satisfac
tory arrangements of water rates and
extensions, would be emphatically in
favor Of doing so. But If by voting these
bonds we place permanent burden on
this city, and by doing so simply reduce
our water rates few dollars, | am most
decidedly opposed to the proposition.
think every taxpayer in the city would be
injured ten times as much by voting
these bonds than by continuing to pay
the present rates, and | appreciate the
fact that the rates are excessively high
and should be reduced.
&c. ]. Evans followed Mr.. Wilder. He
said: I rather think the report OF the
committee is just little misleading, and
too favorable to municipal ownership In
regard to cost. There Is, however, some
advantage from financial standpoint in
municipal ownership. That advantage is
measured by the credit advantage of
city over q private corporation. We are
under obligation to-day to pay, in some
form, interest on the present plant, and
hold that there would be no especial OBJ
legation or liability by the issuance Of
$440, 900 Of bonds. The form of the liza
bility would simply be changed, as you
are bound to have the liability as long
as you have the service. In my judg-
ment municipal ownership is inevitable.
But the real reason why this city should
own the waterworks Isl the fact that 40,- |
900 people should not have to depend on
private corporation or private indi-
viduals for such an essential thing as
water. It is the question Of having an |
immediate and continuous supply, with
out fear Of having 1t cut of, as has been |
the case more than once in dealings with
private waterwOrks companies
"T. W. Harrison said: Water in abun-
dance and pure should be supplied to the
citizens OF O city at actual cost. 1t is |
something so essential that it should not
be matter for speculation. The mere
question Of sanitation is a great argu-
ment In favor of the city ownership of
waterworks. Not more than two-thirds
OF the people of this city have water priv
ileges, and still the other third is paying
taxes to maintain this city government.
The city should be in position to sup
ply these outstanding districts, which
never will be supplied by private cor
poration, because private corporation
looks at the matter simply as question
of dollars and cents. Such a corporation
would never extend a main where 1t
wouldn't pay for itself.
The present corporation is located
In Jersey City, and primarily hold that
this Is not what the citizens Of this city
To -lsrhA AAnA Il