Evening journal., 1899-03-01
WEDNESDAY. MARCH l, 1899
"A WORD no MIR. sPEAIl,nAlN.

endorsement Of the present system OF
taxing the water consumers OF VIII
mlngton. He says a good deal without
saying anything He does not touch
che question in any particular.
We admit that when the commission
took control Of the water Department
it was run down. We admit that the
Water Commission has built up the
pant to what II is to-day. We admit
that aihe pant Is equal to that Of al
most any city on this size In the United
States. We admit that the department
has turned into the city Treasury a
handsome surplus annually. We be
lieve that the people OF Wilmington
know these things. but they do not en-
ter into the present argument. We are
not asking that tine present Water
Commissioners be legislated out Of of
nee. We are not asking that they be
hampered OF hindered in their work
We admit that the Water Department
is an object lesson, not only here but
10 the whole country as well," but we
don't admit that It is 'an example Of
how municipal business should be con-
Quoted"
The Water Department OF the city of
Wilmington is guilty Of a gross injus
tice against the water consumers on the
city Of Wilmington.
Does Allen Speakman deny that when
the general levy was made and the
taxes thereunder collected that the
water consumers did not pay their fair
share at $1.4O on the 500?
Does Allen Speakman contend that
after the water consumers have paid
their lbill and fair share under the gem
eral levy that they should. In addition
to giving the Water Department all the
money it needs and s9S,O0O besides
submit to $4,000 OF that $685. 900 being
spent for pipe which is thrown out in
a vacant lot to rust, and then supply
the remaining $4,000 OF that surplus
70 tho general fund to which they have
already contributed their fair shane un-
der the general levy?
Does ALLEN Speakman contend that
that $4,000 used for general purposes
does not keep down the taxes OF the
non-consumers Of water, and relieve
them OF their just proportionate share
OF taxation under the general levy?
Does Aiken Speal1man contend that II
Is right for the water consumers OF the
city Of Wilmington to relieve man
like Samuel Bancroft. Jr.. OF 1915 OF
taxes under the general levy--a man
who has a water plant Of his own and
who contributes nothingw gworthmention-
ing 10 the support of the Water De
pertinent and who, IN addition to that
has his property in the city on han
rate OF taxation?
Does Alden SPealaman know OF any
process 4 reasoning whereby he can
Justify such a condition as that?
In his letter he does not enter into
the argumcrG at aln He deals in gen.
era,itles, but few Of (which are denied
The fac. remains that under the pres
ent water rates The water consumers II
1898 provided $4,000 for the mainte
nance OF the Water Department; $40,
900 for water pipe which was not need
ed that year, and which win not b.
needed for year OF two to come; $S6,
000 ID the general fund after nayin,
their fun share into that fund undo
the general levy; maintained Coo
Spring Park for the benefit OF both. con
sumers and non-coneumers Of wafer
supplied free water to ali the publl
schools of the cityg TO the publ
buildLeH Of the city; furnished all th
water for fire-hghting purposes at
cost OF $4,000; furnished free water L
the State Armory, and sprinkled tn
streets of the city Of wilmington.
Does Alien Speakman contend tha
al these things should he saddled o,
the water consumers Of Wilmingto-
and that the non-conisumers. who shar
equally in the benefits. should not pa
tneLr fair share Of such expense? N Sc
let him advance his reasons that w
may know what they are and 20 init
a critical analysis Of them. His ,ette
is not argument. When analyzed
really says nothing. The same may b
said Of the letters Of f. Tatnall War
ner. Samuel Bancroft, Jr., Charles Nv
PtAsey and others who have written I
members Il the General Assemll,
They all evade the vital point, whic
Is that the water consumers OF ia
CITY Of Wilmington last year gave tn
non-conslmers Of water $50 900. an
uhat in the last few years they hay
given these non-conslmers over 5000
600 Of such blood money. That is III
eonddtion which confronts THE wats
consumers. Theme was no reason wh
the Water Commissioners shorld nk
put the water plant IN good cond
ton. There has been no stint