The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-07-18

mnrh.ncry whether hy negligence Of tho
| COMPANY or NOT. ana does upl Mslricl -
/ 90 th- length ~. dine that /, may Use bayou
water 20 lis pipes, pui simply uiioWs the
( company 10 dy 30 temporarily AZ long as
DO p.eAacH lt wJu.u have been am easy
inutUr TO have Inserted clause requiring
th4 company 10 pay penalty Tor cach
Apur or each day mat bayou water was
usyd in lts pipes, I1s would have been
some extent lt ,e Z, guarded against this
POISONOUS water.
3. 1he old contract does not require TINT
the company shan furnish water for do.
nestle use, ana the new one, instead of
amending III, $50 a., to include this purpose,
SIMPLY Eayes lhe old provision In effect.
ainer oc7ire- the meter In his house, 1t
must Np satisfactory ITO the water com.
puny aud chief of the fire department.. -
Jbe effect OF this is simply 10 say that
to agree with fhe IRE chief. tho party can
not have the meter
>. There are many parts Of the city
which are not reached by the water works
system at all. / know OF one portion par
ticularly In the Firth ward where cltl-
Zens would Ike tc have the use of water
Tor domestic purposes aud Gre protection
aud although the company was ordered
over. n year ago, 20 lay It's mains In that
npighbcih hood, the mains have not yet been
extended ana there Is no way under tho
old contract or the new one, to compel the
company 60 extend them, unless II be 10
withhold their pay. The new contract
should have a provision for the protection
az cur citizens, SO as 10 insure tile laying
Of mains whenever ordered by the city
council.
The proposed contract viii be an injury
to the city in the following items:
l, The old contract requires the city TO
Il which is to compel the city 60 pay for
some hydrants where they are not needed.
But the company has OF late, under verbal
agreement, furnished them every two blocks
and charged accordingly, aud could have
continued 10 do so very probably. Vet
the new contract allows tha hydrants TO
be placed hy the company within block
Of each other aud forces the city To pay for
the use of water accordingly.
.. The water company Us not required TO
throw water any specified distance as here
tofore required for the cxtingulshment Of
iires III Il Is Impossible for II 10 Hive mp
20 the terms Of its old contract, should
bear the expense OF furnishing this pres
sure by means Of IRE engines or otherwise
The difference 10 the city In this particular
Is substantially as follows;
II can not give the exact amounts but
the following figures are close enough 10
show the approximate sum the city would
lose by the operations:
would earn annually about S20Op0,
But for several years past IL did not,
and It does not now, earn per year, ex-
"Under the new contract It VIII receive
each year about $1,000.
(which compared with the cliys present
annual payments shows loss OF about
The % per cent which Is to be paid at
$4,000
'Ihe expense OF purchasing three steam
hie engines, with horses etc, will he
about $4,000.
TO maiutan and operate these engines
including wages for three years 70 come
VIII ill,he nearly. u not quite. $4,000.
Ihus u viii be seen that the city viii
pc out OF pocket somewhere between SGO-
ND and $4,000, IN it's efforts 10 assist tha
water company TO comply with lts can.
tract
the water company In consideration
o. concessions made 20 Ii In the new con-
tract, agrees 10 deduct ~ per cent o. The
amount claimed by 1t from Aprll ls0S. 10
~ the contract is signed the com.
[ Iah{ VIII nave the right Ia claim avery.
thufg granted 20 lt--but what amount does
!. lkfee 70 deduetf Is not the laneuage
p" i'hSerfalh a. - mean nothlEg3
II does seem that While tho mnfter
70 up Tor discussion some attempt at least