The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-07-18
LIGHT ON THE WATER CONTRACT.

LIGHT ON THE WATER CONTRACT.
The Post on yesterday printed statements from
those who uphold the confirmation of the new water
contract including the mayor and the chairman Of the
finance committee of the council. In doing this The
Post performed public service because. up TO that
time the public had not been taken into the conf
dence Of those who were pushing this proceeding The
people had not. in any degree whatsoever, been en-
lightened to the promised benefits TO accrue TO
them through the transactions but The Post must con
fess to disappointment at the failure of any Of ,uese
gentlemen explain the seeming urgent necessity for
the oyerhauling OF the old contract which had only
two years longer to run Surely there have been
some reason, some necessity FOR this prociptate
ton, and the public win doubt share with The
Post in its disappointment in this particular.
Mayor Woolford declined to discuss the merits Of
the contract on the ground that he not suff
GENTLY familiar with it's PROVISIONS This Is a some.
what extraordinary statement to from tho mayor
especially ia view Of the fact that he gave that
he would veto a resolution Of the council which to all
intent and purposes had for It's obiec the holding mp
temporarily of the confirmation Of these very provi
sons with which his honor pcadoo unfamilary. 1t
does seem reasonable to suppose that he would have
desired tine to acquain himself with the subject His
honor s most positive, however, in another respect
that the adoption by the council of Alderman BEN
netts resolution providing Tor the submission Of the
whole matter to the people does not delay final pro.
ceedngs in the of signing up and delivery of the
contract.
Is the mayor quite that he is right in this
position?
1t is true that parliamentary point OF order might
have been raised in the council against consideration
OF the Bennett resolution but this was not done and
hence the adoption Of that resolution became as much
the action of the council as was the motion to confirm
the contract 1t Is least an open question and one
about which the mayor would do well TO be thor
oughiy advised before proceeding further. We're this
matter in which the marketing of bonds was in.
volved It IS easy to imagine that IL would not be
treated in such ar ad captandom manner Even as il
is possible legal complications would suggest the wis.
dom of at least reasonable canton
Alderman Tufay ruts his snaport Of the now con.
tract on the ground tnat iii will save Ia the CITY soma
100000 during the two years if has 10 run uo a~.
rives at the figures in mi. way.
In t. old contract the water company eb5rgee Ike cite
SO per hydam per anuum w 20 hydrapts $40 per
dTants '" " ''" 's''A 500 IS
The new contract put these b trans $50 per year
] io we ''t 500 ana $3.50 per hydrmt for each
On he 500 hyd5r now IN use there is saving of s,,As
per 4Rlnm M -
WASHING paved stTeet. Ris Is cut down n ne bI ' S
the new contract and the city has seven blocks
sctsI saving Of @ ,e aiS To'aG' peTe Is another
side Of the per cent reduction everything due the water
tonP b y 'ae eS lGS ap[i s9S. which VIII amount
$4,000 making total saving to The city Of sometime over
$4,000, oo', IN ne Two years
~, o.'us 'eiS wen ~" let US LOOK INTO 1t a
H''e 10y 'eleas'hs 'he company from its for
70 iurniSn pressure Tor hre purposes
- 80. ~, 80" H,"ue "a ''"teeS by tne com