Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1905-08-24


RUNIclpAL 0WNEEsHlP, /
D1anQ1 1ptlIgatapce tof Cry
Under Present Condi ton.
EplToR FRKx PREss:- At the
last meeting Of the city council q
bill wss allowed the Ora melville
Water Go. in the sum Of tl198.7 ~
in additiop 70 the usual monthly
bill OF t8S:S3 for the use Of water
for the city for the month 81 July.
The larger bill was due - wates.
On account n he delins
ouent payments which Were held
up during the liligsttpn - ennd
the existing contfact. When MI.
Jack got his decisiSp Il ON the
supreme court Of the state against
the city, the city treasury was ont
OF funds and the then council
agreed to pay ons-halfe II the
amount then owing M. Jack, and
10 pay the other half at I'd Q expi-'
ration OF: one year. TIL other
half is the sum which was allowed
by the council last Friday night.
This is only one outcome Of the
franchise end contract now existing
between the city and the water
company. Under the terms Of
that franchise and contra act the
city IL obligated to pay the water
company {he sum of $50 33 for the
next 286 months, OF . total Of
923, 1872. SO. This franchise and
contract ID a ve y valuable asset Of
the water company and II il inclnd-
ed in the option which The city
now holds upon the water system.
By voting for municipal owner
ship Of the water system The tax
payers wipe out that; $23,SS2 80
obligation against the city treasury
for good and all, and the city will
own the springs, ground, system
and its full equipment best es. A
vote against municipal ow nership
perpetuates private ownership, and
thereby obligates the city to con.
tinue the payment Of this s23, $780,
3S, or t8$. 33 per month for the
next 286 months. And all the
time during this 2S6 mon this the
city will never get adequa ate fire
} protection. Under private owner
ship the owners have no induce
ment to provide adequate fire pro-
lection. Under private ow ownership
! we will still be under the necessity
Of paying our monthly oils fol
water for domestic purposes only,
! besides being taxed or thu
payment Of the $23, S32 80 un'
der the existing cpntrac t. Ant
when the contract expires-wher
the city has paid out it's 1923, 3S2.
3S-the city will have to keep or
buying its water for public usel
/ from the private owners Of thu
water system, whosever they may
be. and we shall have no fbette1
fire protection than we ha We now
Why not take advantage Of thu
opportunities offered thropgh mu
nicipal ownership to wipe out tina
! obligation Of 1913, 382 SO aga inst tn
I city treasury and in a short tim
secure more water for private
users, free water for all ell " pur
) poses, and adequate fire pr objection
, for all, thereby lowering mi ~teriall,
] the present high rates whic h we al
have e pay for insurance sgains
Do not be led astray by i'd
assertions that municipal owner
Z ship Of the water system mean
higher taxation. The ,fnancis
feature lie q very simple proposition
The water system is paying an an
nual net profit Of $4,000 per year
aud every new consumer adds t
the profits of the system. Deduct
ing the 81, 900 annual subsi dy fror
the city and the waite plan
pays u net annual profit {
/. $500, which, with the CROWN
business Of the system will alnpl
provide for the proposed better
ments year by year out of the rev
nues alone. The annual subsid
Of $1,000 per year for which "
are now taxed to pay th waite
company will pay five p or cen
interest upon q bond Issue OF $40
600, thus leaving only $500
interest to be met either II ON tt
revenues Of the system or rom az
ditional taxation. MeanW lille tt
city will be owning its owl wat
system and will be freed from ii
strife and discussions viii Oh ha,
kept this town all shot to piec,
under private ownership
In my personal jadg ment
should consider it business prop,
sition to pay s32, 900 for til priv
lege of uniting q divided comm
nifty, regardless of any asset. ]
the past under private ownersh'
the water question has entered in
Dur city politics to such an extel
that one half of the town won