The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-12-26

manifest in every line and the record
er declares that he is beginning to feel
the public pulse on the water problem
as he had never hoped to feel it.
OF the hfty-two citizens who have
so far sent responses to the circular
letter fifteen are unalterably opposed
to the municipal ownership of Il water
plant. while thirty-seven favor it un-
der certain conditions. These certain
conditions are in nearly every in
stance the assurance that the manage
ment of such Il plant would be kept out
of politics.
FAVOR PRESENT PLANT.
All but two or three of those favor
ing municipal ownership of the water
system favor also the purchase of the
present plant of the Scranton Gas and
Water company in preference to the
city building it's own plant and secur-
ing it's supply of water from some 9TH
er source. Only Il very few have kind
words for the present water company.
A well known lawyer perhaps best
crystalizes the sentiment Of those who
believe in municipal ownership but
who feel that politics should be elm
mated.
LAS to the general proposition that a
city shall own it's own water SYSTEM
he writes, II desire to say that deem
it a proper subject of municipal owner
ship. I am not in favor of the city
of Scranton entering upon ownership
Of any water works, either by construc-
tion or purchase, until the legislation
is such as will provide for it's manage
IN al ia 4 nj, fol
from politics, by providing for Il nom
partisan water board, or such other
method as will secure the best bust
ness talent in it's administration. The
present legislation is very meagre."
well known member of the board
of trade and a sound business man has
the following comment to make:
"OWing to the average ability to say
nothing of the honestly of the class of
administrators our mixed population
and unstable political equilibrium
would place in control II major part of
the time" writes a leading member of
the board of trade. Il do not think
it within the range of probability that
the adoption of the system would re-
suit in economic value to the tuXpay-
ers of this city. am therefore OPP
posed to the proposition of municipal
ownership rs applied to this city"
DIFFERENCE IN RATES.
An interesting paragraph taken from
the letter of a We'll known citizen who
favors municipal ownership and who
has something To say about water rates
reads as follows:
aside from the extra charge made
h,
ownership of water privileges by pri-
Vate corporation. ii is largely detr-
mental to the industrial interests of the
city. ! am n taxpayer in Greater New
York The same service for which I
am charged ST. there is SIS here. or
course. this is but :: single instance, but
1t shows the possibilities of municipal
ownership and that too, in Il city where
the authorities are charged with gross
ly eXtraVagant management"
a distinguished member of the bar,
who expresses himself as being "henrt-
lily and unqualiliedly in favor Of munich
pal ownership" has the following in
teresting observation to make:
Il do not think it practicable for the
city to purchase the plant of the Scran-
ton Gas and Water company at any
tIllIS llkc II proper llSuft, lntfe Is also
the objection to this purchase, that the
city might, If there We're no competing
companies, be as arbitrary about water
rates as private corporation. In the
borough of Shenandoah there is both 4
private plant and one owned by the
municipality. The result is that the
water rates there are practically one
half or the rates now charged in this
city"
\ leading lawyer makes the following
comment, after expressing himself as
favoring the general proposition of
municipal ownership:
a SPLENDID SYSTEM.
1.-The Scranton Gas and Water conf
pany has a splendid system and am
abundant supply of very good water,
and if the works could be purchased at
"A reasonable figure, should be i'm favor
of it. l have no idea, however, that
this could be done. | think the COM
pany would probably want about six or
seven millions, and our debt limit would
only allow us to go about half that
amount. About the only feasible plan
! can see would be II law allowing us to
take the water company's plant and
have the price fixed by jury of view
ana the court. ! have not much faith
in this. though The temptation would