The daily sentinel., 1903-03-23
GIVE DIRECT ARGUMENT.
To Editor of The Sentinel :

notice in late issue of another
paper an article relating to the com
paritive prices paid for water for do
nestle and other pur poses under the
old and the new regimes / presume
the article in question is intended as
a body blow to 'Private Ownership, "
inasmuch as slight allusion to
new issue sof bonds is made in the last
paragraph. | land every one else, for
that matter) am willing to grant that
the rates charged by the old water
company were excessive and even ex-
OF bltant. But, as l wrote you in my
first communication, there is no anal
ogy whatsoever between water works
and an electric light plant; therefore
there is no room for an argument on
the subject But before dismissirg
the subject, 1 will call your attention
to one small clause in the article of
the able bodied advocate of municipal
ownership.
You will notice Mr.. Editor, that
he says if the city of Grand Junction
were to charge the same rates that
the old water company charged,
enough money could be raised to pay
the expenses of the city and also to
pay the needed Sc, 800 year which
will have to be raised if we adopt
municipal ownership of light. That
is pretty confession, isn't it? Why
should it even be necessary to charge
these old rates? Who will even sug-
gest such thing unless it be some
rabid reformer. carried away by his
overwhelming and superabundant zeal
to secure some soft sinecure of
an office, such as superintendent of
water and light plants? Pretty OWL
ership that. to charge extra for water
to make up for a deficit in the light
bill. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
forsooth.
If these advocates of municipal
ownership. these reformers who al 6
so eager to turn the legitimate bust
ness of city government into a ample
of commerce with no thought of per-
sonal emolument, of course) are in
earnest. and if they have. as they
claim. the best interests of the com
munity at heart. why don't they bring
forth some direct argument in favor
of their hobby? Let them refer the
taxpayers to some one or more cities
where municipal ownership of cleo
trio light plants has proven to be q
success. 1 do not mean that they
should give list of towns where
municipal ownership is practiced. /
have full list of the latter, but L am
anxiously waiting for them to show
by statistics that it has ever been
proved to be a success i'll itself. with
out assistances.
And now as L promised before /
will give few statistics ON increased
taxation: In Austin. Tex. before the
municipal plant was established, the
tax rate was 80 cents ON 800; now
it is 81 BOZ on 500. In Braintree.
Mass. The tax levy in 1897 was SIT. 20
on 81, 900. Now with municipal own
er3hip it is $40 40. In Chicopee. Mass
the levy in 1897 was S13. 80 ON ST. 600
now it is SIS In Needham, Mass
municipal ownership raised the tax
levy from S12. 60 in 1897 to $17 40 two
years after. In Middlebury. Peabody
and Reading all i'll Massachusetts.
there was a similar raise for the same
cause. Before the municipal plant
was installed in Paris. Tenn. the tax
rate was 45 cents on 500; now it is
81. 90 on 800 with no sinking fund to
pay the bonds. In Humbolt Tenn,
before the plant was purchased the
tax rate was 81. 90 on 500 now it is
81. 80. and this does not provide
sinking funo for bonds. there being
special tax of 10 cents on 500 for that
purpose. Just one more: In North
field. the tax levy was 30 cents ON 81
now it is 80 cents ON 81. This last
is corker. We might easily come
to that here.
TAXPAYER