Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-10-07
TIE WATER ISSUE.
Shall Carson Have Municipal
Ownership and the Tax
Payers Run I heir
Own Water Works.

~ " IL W 0SSA w VI LAD
The Ormsby county Silver platform
contains the following plank:
We pledge our legislative noml-
ness to support bill allowing the
people of Carson to vote on the
subject of the Municipal owner
ship of water, a bill which was
beaten in the last legislature by the
| interference of outside counties on
| purely local issue. and we pledge
the people of Ormsby that the Sill
| yer party will not g i've up the tight
for cheaper water rates until the
scheme Of municipal ownership OF
! water is an accomplished fast.
This states in the plainest possible
language the position OF the party
! nominees on this all Important ques-
ton. It is the first time il the history
OF Ormsby politics that any political
party has dared to take up the cudgels
~ defense OF the taxpayers against the
water monopoly OF this city. Up to
the time the Silver party was triumph
ant in Ormsby, the chief owner of the
Water Companys stock was the politi-
cal dictator OF Ormsby. and ruling the
/ Republican party with a rod of iron he
! obliged the local bosses to dance to his
music.
| All. politics was subservient to his
! own private business. and local courts.
| the county and city government were
| all run in the interests of the Water.
! Co. and the Y. & 7. K. 4.
No Grand Jury was ever drawn that
/ the lists were not first revised in the
railroad office, and with the absolute
control of the party machinery, all the
t qualifications of county government
were in the hands of the two corpora
| tions mentioned.
Two years ago the APPEAL showed
2, the water consumers Of Carson to what
/ extent tiney we're 'setting it in the
neck so to speak, from the charges
of the Water Co. The Grand Jury,
| drawn honestly and without regard
! for the wishes of the corporations,
probed the eShorbitant rates the city
and county were being charged by the
company. and recommended that the
city issue bonds sufficient to enable it
the same for the benefit of the public.
The report showed that the rate the
| city and county were paying for its
| water service would alone pay the in
terest on the bonds and liable the tax
payers to have free water for their
homes.
Municipal ownership of water is no
new thing. 1t is coming into vogue
all over the country and its purpose is
simply to deliyer the taxpayers from
the clutches Cf rapacious and thieving
corporations and enable them to secure
water service at nominal cost.
Wherever it has been tried it has
been Il success and "a welcome adjunc,
; to the economy of well regulated
municipalities.
Carson can have it as well as any
other city.
There will be 20 attempt to start
: new plant and run the Old company
. | out of business, but to purchase tn,
1 plant at its present value as appraised
a by the company and run it as mum
: cipal corporation, and thus do ava,
: with the monthly toll now levied b,
the company upon Carson consumers
1t first requires an act of Legislature
to enable the County Commissioners o
the City Trustees to order an election
d to ascertain whether or not the peopl
5. want to issue the bonds, and purchas
y the water works at d fair valuation
II Last session such bill was intro
= duced and backed by solid Ormsb
= delegation, but the Water Co. sen
paid lobbyists out among the mem ber
of the legislature and spent none
y freely to defeat the bill
J. 1t was purely a local affair concern
g ing Ornsby county alone, but throup
Is the efforts of the Water Co.'S lobby
c; lists nearly every county in the Stat
IL took hand.
y, The same question comes up agai
~ this fall and we believe that the pee
pie, now being hoioughly awake /
the question, viii record their wishe
in unmjstaka BILE terms at the polls
There is no mention made of tn
municipal ownership OF water in tn
Repu blican platform.