The Paducah sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1898-1906, 1902-11-03

value, one concerned in this case. An
effort was made in 1895 to buy, and
what was presumed to be the real val
ne was determined. Reputable men
said what that real value was, and II
they don't know more than DIR. Smith
about the real value, great mistake
was made in not employing him to
settle the question in the first place.
II would have saved the city about
al 900. When such a question is to
be decided the law lays down the
manner in which it shall be done, and
il the law was not followed out it WAS
not the water oompany's fault aud
the matter has no place in the present
question. The insinuation that any
Of the appraisers were unduly inhu-
enced could probably not be sustained
by DIR. Smith in court, and If it can
not, he ought TO have refrained from
msking it in public statement.
As to the assertion 1--WE are asked to
further tie the hands of the city by
voting upon ourselves perpetual con
tract for water supply" this is pal
pably untrue. There is no perpetual
contract. The ordinance is plainly
for 20 years. II is not tying the city's
hands. The city can buy IL she has
the money.
The question Of alteration taking
out germs is one on which eminent au.
thorities don't agree. II 1t takes out
the mud we shall be that much better
off, and the people will be willing to
risk the rest.
As to whether city should not "sr-
range for permanent supply of river
water until every effort to obtain it
from wells has been exhausted, that
is another question that has no bear
ing on the case in point. 1t is ques-
tion that should have been decided by
Paducah years ago, II decided at all. II
is too late to think about it now. Meth
er has anything the city Of Memphis
has done any relevancy to Psducah's
present proposition. What he states
about Memphis may be true or it may
not be true, but whether true or not,
the same conditions that apply or ap-
piled there do not necessary apply
here. The case Of Memphis has moth
ing to do with the case here.
These points are the only ones DR..
Smith makes. His article is mislesd-
ing and does not deal with pertinent
facts. 1t is an appeal to the ignorant
and prejudiced, and for this reason
was rejected by every paper in Padu-
cab.
As q matter Of fact, since the ques-
lions are raised, If the present con-
tract is not made with the water com
pany, we shall not have filtered wa
ter. We shall have to continue to
drink mud, and perhaps worse. This
would of course help DR.. Smiths bus
mess along, for many people might be
sick, but we do not think the doctor
advocates defeat of the proposition
on that account. Furthermore, il this
proposition is not accepted, in few
years wher the contracts for fire ny
drants expire the city will be at the
mercy of the water company. Twenty
five dollars is . reasonable rate for fire
hydrants. The city is now paying $40
ON some. 1t may be more then. The
city would be loft with three things
to do. Buy the water works under
its five year option, construct . new
plant, or do without fire protection.
Psducah Will probably never buy
the water works. 1t would cost $780,
900 to put in plant as good as this
one. its valuation would consequent
ly probably be that much, with the
value Of the franchise thrown In
The franchise was secured by the com
pany and the company has made it
valuable. II is assessed for taxation,
and is recognized by law as q part Of
the corporation. The city SO recognizes
1t and receives taxes on 1t. Hence II
the city ever sought to buy the plant,
it would have to pay for the franchise
also, which could doubtless put the
price far be vond the reach of the city.
Tho people would never vote bonds for
such an unnecessary thing IS the pur
chase of the plant.
And If the city undertook to build
another system Of water works, it