The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1903-07-03

G.. r. Tinan. IA SO
These are but sample figures for a
portion Of the water consumers who
use hose for sprinkling. Mr..
Stuyer'S is for the last six months,
but the yard use is always collected in
those months. Same as to VOLTS and
Maynard's These amounts paid are
practically the same as were paid by
those using the water in 1900 and 1899.
@. r. Tinan has never paid less than
$14 and the most stock he has had is a
horse and a COW. He has two cisterns
for house use, Parker and Berry also.
In the above figures Rose is charged
$3 for yard use, Hinrichs, B. F.
Ochsner and r. p. Ochsner s6, May
nard and Stuver 81, Whitbeck, Berry,
Parker, Foote and Tlnan sl2 and
Bowles $S.
The CITY ordinance passed in Feb
ruary, 1899, fixing the rates, provides
that a private family may have use OF
the city water for 50 a year. In barn
use one head Of stock is charged 81,
each additional head so cents.
The ordinance gives permission to
attach a hose tosa hydrant for lawn
and garden use for not to exceed four
hours day on payment of an addi-
tional tax Of from So to sl2 year.
There is nothing in the ordinance,
however, to preventa private family
or individual, upon payment of the
So, from drawing from hydrant all
the water desired, for gardens, flower
beds, trees, or any purpose whatever
SO long as no hose is attached. If
you carry the water in pals ycu are
charged 50. II you draw it through
a hose you are liable to a charge OF $l2..
The council fixed the rates each in
dividual should pay taxing Parker,
Tinan, Whitbeck and Foote the maxi
mum amounts and making a. sliding
scale on the others from $3 to So and
both Mr.. Lumbard and Mr.. Hanne-
man, as water commissioners collect
ed on that basis and it was paid With
out grumbling or protest by, those
paying the sl2 lawn tax through 1899,
1900 and 1901 because, ~ they were
glad to get water at any price and
improve the looks of things, and ~
they were permitted to use what
was required. That part OF the ordln-.
ance limiJing the hours for yard pur-.
poses to four hours day was not en-
forced by either Mr.. Hanneman or
Mr.. Lumbard, for it was plain to.
them that no consumer particularly
those along South Main street who
were paving a big rate, could get that
amount of good from it.
Last year, when Mr.. Stewart took
hold, the rates were lowered some
and after collecting the greater part Of
the yard tax for the year he started
in July to enforce the four hour
feature, presumably Of course
with the consent or orders Of the
council; and the only reason he had
not our money in bis pocket with the
rest was because we were east and
a not here to pay it. When we return
! ed in August we were told that we
.I could not use the water but -four
4 hours day. 1t was then we kicked,
4 and when we found that we were tt
a be charged one price and another fol
the same use of the water -four hours
a day. lower price, we kicked still
4 harder, have been kicking ever since
and are going to keep kicking as Ions
3 as such a state OF affairs exist-ant
! every honest and fair man will say VIZ
are right. The water commissionel
8 says SO, anyway.
We notonlY proved to the satisfac
tion of the water commissioner b,
our receipts that we, with a few
others had been paving more than W,
should right along, but that the 100:
deal was a ranker he'll d.upyet, in whlcl
he agreed with us fully, said so tt
Others, and will say SO now if yol
ask him. We had already paid hin
S1.50 in advance, the regular charg,
Z for horse and COW a year, Will,
the horse was sold in March and th
COW died at the same time. He accept
ed SIS more, $3.50 in all, and gave
Z receipt in full. and said it was all w
ought to pay-and says SO yet. /
Uncle Chauncey can get him to say W
owe the city SO more it's his for th
: asking.
8 lit is to be admitted that MI
Tinan should pay as much for waite
, as Mr.. Maynard. But we don't admi
that either Mr.. Maynard. or MI
8 Tinan should pay more than an
0 other consumer under like uses an
Q Continued on page eighD