The Imperial press., 1905-09-02
THE BOND QUESTION IN NO. 5
I. P. SillIman Answers Statements Made By Dr. (. s. Lombard In
 Published interview
To EDITOR OF IMPERIAL PRESS,
 Imperial, California.

Imperial, California. DEAR SIR:
 As you have opened the columns of your paper to a discussion of the No. ) bond question, I wish to say few words on the subject.
 The settlers in Water Company No. , have for some time been asking their board and their attorney to secure for them two things to which they thought they were justly entitled:
 1st. An adequate system Of canals and ditches without further cost to themselves
 2nd. Not as important, but an equally just claim, that they should re- ceive some com pensation for the dama- ges sustained by them as result of the failure of the California Develop ment Company to fulfill their contract.
 That these things could be secured by direct means was not considered possible by anyone familiar with the conditions. As the result of the united efforts of the stockholders, the board and our attorney, method for adjust ing our difficulties without appealing to the courts was at last reached in settlement made with Mir. Heber on behalf of the California Development Company by which the unissued stock of No. 5, with certain exceptions, was returned to the treasury of said com pany. To make this stock of any value in the hands of No. , it was absolutely necessary to construct canals to the lands for which it was to be sol1. For the purpose of making this asset avail able, the board asked the stockholders to authorize an issue of bonds Fifteen thousa ld shares of stock were sold in the North end of our district for $20 per share. The sum of $2 per share was expended in constructing the dis tributing system, leaving SIS per share Cor per acre) for the benefit of agents or promoters in some form. Not one cent went into the treasury of No. ,. There are several thousand acres of available land still left in No. (Dr. Lombard's committee says 0,000) upon which stock can be located. the proceeds from the sale of which, under the existing contract, would go into the treasury of No. 5 for the building ot better system to these lands and also for the perfection of the system to lands already occupied and upon which water stock has been located. Canals will be built to these lands; they will be a part of the No. 5 system; No. 5 will have to maintain them; the canals will cost, possibly $5 per acre and the water stock will sell at $2O per share Cor acre). The question is, shall we build the canals ourselves and build them right, and use the pro- ceeds for the perfection of our system, or shall we turn this stock over 10 a syndicate Cor construction company)?
 We are told in Dr. LOmbard's inter- view that such a system would cost $5OO,00O to $8OO,00O and that it would take years to complete 1t. Does anyone at all familiar with such matters sup pose that investors would consider an undertaking of that kind which would take years to complete, unless they expected to double their investment? The Doctor proposes that we vote bonds to assist the proposed syndicate to finance the proposition Bonds, indeed Bonds, which, we have been told by the Doctor, would be our utter ruin, would be, it seems, a blessing if voted for the benefit of the syndicate.
 What is the reason No. should not control her own affairs? Did not the dam we put in stand? Have not the works put in by our own superintendent stood the test? Do we need guardian that we should turn our affairs over to a syndicate? Do we not know that we would have to pay the syndicate in some form or other $2 for every dollar of Improvements they put in for us? Would it not be more difficult to compel a syndicate, which would be interested only in it's own profit, to do the work right, than it would to have it done right if done under the control of No. 5,