Arizona republican., 1899-10-22
PHOENIX. OCTOBER 22. 1899.


ridiculous reasons for selling the city
to the water company
WHERE without letting the cit
IS MR.. liens have an oppor-
GAM "AT?'' tunity to be heard. He
says that it takes six
cords of wood day to run the water
works and that on account of the ex-
traordinary cost of fuel the water
works would be a bad business for the
city to own.
Let us do a little figuring. Taking
his own statement as true, six cords
Of wood a day would cost at present
prices $21 per day, and for 365 days
1885, He says the receipts of the
present company are $4,000 per year.
That leaves s34, 1886 per year. Salaries
and wages would amount to about
81, 1886 per year, so even on Mr.. CAMS
own figures the water company is now
getting 100000 per year out of the city
and water consumers after paying for
fuel and salaries of employees.
Mr. CAM, is not $4,000 per year
q
of $4,000?
Mr.. CAM, did not Mr.. Abs Hagan
say that $15O,OO0 would put in a new
and much better system than that now
in operation, and one fully adequate to
the present needs of the city, with 100
hydrants for city use, and did not the
plan submitted to the people last year
call for the issuance of $3.50, 900 for
water works and S115, coo for sewers, or
$265,OO0 for water works and sewers?
Deduct the interest at per cent on
S15O,OO0, or $500, from the net profit
city would then have $22, 500 a year
left to turn into the city treasury or
pay on the bonded Indebtedness Ac-
cording to that the city could pay for
the entire works and own them in six
and half years
Mr.. CAM, your own figures only
prove that it is folly for the city not to
own the water works.
Is it not a fact that the bonds issued
by city for water works are not con-
of revenue? You say we would be en-
Joined and the present company would
push US into a lawsuit. AS a business
man, Mr.. CAM, would you allow
afraid of lawsuit? You say conces-
sions have been offered. Why did you
not inform the citizens of this city
long ago about this offer? Was it be-
cause you We're going to make a new
contract with the water company and
wanted to have this as an excuse to
offer for delivering over the city to
the water company? Suppose that in
stead of issuing $4,000 worth of bonds |
for water works the city issues $780, |
OO0, making $1,000 more interest to pay. |
The city would still have $17,5OO a year
to put into the treasury or to pay on
the bonds.
Mr.. CAM, who sang that siren song
to you about the cost of operating the |
water works of this city? Mr.. T. w. |
Hine, who was superintendent of the !
local water works in 1896, sent a state
ment signed by himself to the En-
cheering News that the entire OPP
Grating expenses of the plant in this
city was $500 year
Mr.. CAM, don't you think it is a
high handed proceeding to turn this
city over to the water company just
because a few New York or California
bondholders and water works manipu-
lators want you to. without letting the
people know anything about it? Think
what you would do to this city. You
would have the city pay in forty years
100000; you would have the water
consumers pay $500, 900 in the same
period, and look at the outrageous
rates you would make the citizens pay
as compared with other cities?
For a seven or eight room house in
this city the water company charges
from SIS to $50 a year. The following
towns and cities are a few of the
hundreds that own their own water
works and charge from 81 to Sc per
year for the same grade of houses:
In New Hampshire. Concord, Dover
Goffstown, Lebanon and Milford; In
Vermont, Barton, Bradford, Johnson
and Ludlow; in Massachusetts, An
dover, Brockton, Canton and Lowell;
in Rhode Island, Pawtucket and Provi-