The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-07-17
NEW WATER CONTRACT.
Some Views Of City Officials Favor.
able TO II.
WHEREIN THE CITY IS BENEFITED
In "a Financial Observation-Disclosures
Smith Explains How It viii Lead
to Getting Pure Water.
WHEREIN THE CITY IS BENEFITED

between the city ana tue HOUSTON MateE
company snd TO ascertain what, If any.
bepefts VIII accrue to the city and the
water consumer by the adoptiol Of the new
contract, Post reporter instituted an In
quiry yesterday among those who are In
the best position to make a comparison
between the old and new contracts
~
Mayor Woolford declined to discuss the
new contract, saying that he had nothing
20 do with formulating It and was not
sufficiently familiar with its details 10 enter
into discussion as to the different items
wherein a saving will accrue TO the city,
referring the reporter to some Of the meIn-
bers Of the council who had drawn up the
When asked II the signing Of the contract
would have 10 be deferred pending the
action Of the council upon his veto OF Al
dorman Benefits motion to submit the
matter 10 a vote Of the people be replied
No" and sold that Alderman Bennetts
proposition did not AFFECT the contract one
way or the other as the matter had al
seady been settled and the contract ADOPT
ed, so far as the city was concerned. be-
fore Alderman Henuctt's motion WIS In
troduced, and cyeu a submission of the
natter to the people would not be binding
unless the council saw fl 10 reconsider
lfs action Ia voting 10 adopt the contract.
~
Alderman Tunrly, chairman OF the finance
committee and one Of fhe aldermen voting
for the new contract, whom asked as TO
how 1t would benefit the city replied that
Il would save the city at least $4,000 dur
ing the two years It win have 10 run, which
viii be until the expiration Of the water
oompuny's franchise Ia 1903.
This $4,000 is figured out as follows: In
the "iu eontlael lne water company enarseS
iue Guy %4V per nyul4n1 ier annun UP
70 5' AZ, MI i o,, ,s gtg'' rtG ~,
drants.
The new contra pnt these hydrants 81
so Per , year PER nI Grant t3f XXX ,rst Az
over 40
On he 5Ga hydr1nts now IN use there
49, SEE ~, 'i 81 c1Jrvrct taa c,ty maid 81
49, Nh ~ -rir9 ,,,,.aI stroats. ftI'
~ ,. iifr.ct ~ +6 go
r,rtrfc+ ana ss Ike div has fyyanrv.sayar
bi9cIg Of rsypmrft th.f are washed uuier
.bis roriras, h.rs a. -uofher actual slvipy
~ 500 ,.r vrqr rIgt,irg a 4otei cf ss5aS,
rrtefTn AZ +br ID n.r cent reInefi,u on
,.rytbi,g ,i5tc tf ystsr co,nnorv H. +ba
Crv ziIcs NDrlt 1cos ygbich will s,nourt
- abavf Sf50hd por nunun Tor the two
ve-rs o. rIuut (9NOb1 making 4 total
se,.lrr 3, th, rftr Of soIratbip. over $40 -
90 N 30 s,yo wears.
The conc. ssic1s To- the private consumer
ar. r.t Sd rreat. Ouc concession is that
frev gre 10 nav only tba actual cost FOR
wator counecilous with 10 per cent added.
and each coasnWer has the privilege
Of putting. 10 q meter and water used rs
per leo gallons under the new contract
while 81 was cents per 100 gallons under
TIE old contract
The now contract does not extend thf
present franchise or the comnGny. which
runs under the old contract tin 1903
~
s,.-..~tr,,c,4c,,. r-r,,t 7 er,ltb n, ~,
Ter company IVES Nshea ~ 10 the changes
f. thc contract "t he'd nothing TO I1'
e-f5 81, ".ytrb tho r.ri-fr, ~ tho ,c,tr4,t
rs In ,,.,s not sobtritta5 tc IN. {o AS rt
Fi>fo FORM
"Outslde NJ the reduction of - por cent
on eyer-,btr, ,b. ci.,.. rr..g ,,, e,r,,.,,,,
IRON apr" le.N' We make spe'Ic IT,
drcfion OF 5000 per luUun un the
b.a-7ofs nov fp rsa It-I,ilfr, ,t. r,,i,,,
- a.. -.
ll'n TOT Eiit't "N'AlhG'
'The most Important change IN thp rnu.
tract is the elimination az fbe orsesrre 49,
,,.,.,.... 49,.
~" '"''HI l'''u tue on contract un'NJ
which the company could never have been
~ position TO furnish Che city at an
shines pure arrsian water
How can THIS hc done under the new
contract was asked
simply enough Under the Old contract
whenever bre occurred, In order 60 com.
ply with or contract, we had to pul on