Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1905-08-31

Ia Moscow, for instance, where the
typographical features are in many
respects similar 10 those Of Grange
Vile, and whe re they have a
ct their back, just as
Grangeville has, that city would
cheerfully pay twice $4,000 il the
Grangeville sprin gs could be dupli-
on their mountain. And
they would cheerfully incur a
bonded indebtedness of another
go, 900 TO install . gravity system
instead Of their present costly and
insufficient underground reservoir
supply.
Some of our Grangeville people
do not ~sppreciat the immense adj
vantages Of the practically . IN
limited supply of ice-cold, pure
spring water at their back door
with which . kind providence has
endowed our gro wing town. These
springs are IN asset Of the town
which the people alone should ow
and private ownership thereof
should not be to erated for a day
longer than September 10, the date
OF the municipal bond election.
Last week I referred to the fact
that the city cot ncil had just al
lowed . delinqp tent water bill Of
31198. 72. This is an outgrowth
Of the litigation which a former
council enthusias tically but unsuc-
cessfnlly inaugu rated for the pur-
pose Of knocking out the existing
contract and franchise which calls
for the payment out Of the city
treasury Of $23, 1872. 3S in the next
1856 months. The present council,
As it happens, is a unit for muni-
cipal OWNERSHIP p Of the water
system. Its 81 ccessors may be
advocates Of private ownership and
may not give the people q chance
to vote again on the question Of
municipal owne rebip. Or, as is
more likely, we may have councils
which may re new the former
costly process Of litigation with the
water company i % other vain efforts
to annul the existing contract.
Everybody know that there is in
this municipality a d~eep-seated
hostility on the part Of o majority
of our Taxpayers to continue the
payment Of $685. 3 per month TO,
the next "a year to a private cor
poration. This fact has been mani
tested in past city elections,
and there are good reasons fol
believing that this majority is grow
ing with the lapse of time. These are
contingencies VIII ich the thoughtfu.
taxpayers should consider. There
is q future as we'll as q past
So long as the water system re
mains under private ownership thu
water question will continue tt
vex the public mind and distrac'
it's attention fro IN other natter
affecting the ma terial interests O
the town. Like all other questions
the water questio on will never b.
settled until it is settled right
Municipal owne rship solves tn,
problem for GOOD and all. Let u,
keep up with the times and owl
our own municipa al water supply
Why should we continue paying
a municipal tribu ute of $23, S32. 81
for the next "a years to private
owners for the pr ivilege of letting
water run down hill? And whei
the city has pail its 1923, S32. 3,
what has the mu nicipality to chow
for it all at the nd Of the "a years
The testimony of Mr.. Jack il
the litigation will the city over tn
water system is well wortl
considering. Mr.. Jack testifiet
(under oath) thai he had expended
between $4,000 and $50, 900 o,
the system. Mr.. Jack was
thoroughly good man-so good
man that when b 3 got a decision
against the city from the suprem'
court some of our citizens sent hin
q congratulatory telegram, and
am unwilling to believe that b.
per;ured himself in that testimony
1t will be news to many new com
ers that the bulk Of the materia
for the wafer plant was haule,
over Craig 9 moun tain from Lewis
ton in 1898 and 1899, before tn
construction Of the Clearwate
rive. railroad; an d it is therefor
easy to believe that the system
cost all that Mr.. Jack testified
Mr.. Roberts repor t also fails Il
mention it, and his estimates o
the cost of the sys ITEM are all base'
upon the haul rom Sites. Mr.