Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-07-14
WAFER FOR EVERYBODY
And Yet Nobody k Satisfied With the Way It is Sold.

. good deal of timidity, because they know 1t Is vexed question, but otl,- CTS take hold of 1t without the slight est trepidation and dispose Of 1t in an off-hand way as though iL were a small matter. Various efforts have been made to revise the rates, but none of them amounted to anything and many who are now looking on think the present agitation will not bring about the desired result, either. Everybody Is more or less sel- fish about this matter, and this IS quite natural so that it is out of the question to reach conclusions which would give general satisfaction, and as a consequence public officials are slow to run counter with any num- ber of consumers
 In the past when water was not so scarce as it is to-day the city charged 2b per cent to all water consumers outside the city limits, but the act of consolidation knocked that out and made 1t obligatory on the munich pality to charge the same rate to all. It was said that this was an over- sight and that it would be remedicd later, and it was, but the aldermen never took advantage of the power vested in them by the legislature. In 1904 City Attorney Kellogg, acting under instruction from the board of aldermen, had an act passed through the general assembly authorizing the city to charge 10 per cent additional to water consumers in the outside districts, but the board never direct ed the water department to put into effect Why? That's poser, but one city solon answers 1t by stating that 70 far no alderman ever had enough backbone to move that the clerk Of the water board be directed to tack the 10 per cent on to the bills and as consequence they go outstraight. Now, then, if you can't get men to do what any reasonable man would say is right and just, what's the use expecting them to do what great many very good people say ought not to be done? One of the big water con- sumers told Democrat reporter that he had an idea that the factories and other heavy consumers of water are willing to pay the same rates as the small ones. but so long as the city shows disposition to make it less to them nobody should look for op- position to the present schedule from their side of the house. That's sen- sible remark and nobody will be like ly to say aught against it. but it does not solve the water problem. if such 1t might rightfully be termed. As a matter of fact 1t Is no problem at all, If you can get people to agree on the point that the small consumer should be supplied at the same rate as the large one. As has been stated the big fellow IS satisfied to come down with his share, but the little fellow with characteristic generosity persists in carrying more than his share of the burden and so long as he does, it might be hardship upon him to change existing conditions.
 A private corporation has a right to charge as many prices for It's stock as 1t pleases, but 1t Is quite different with a municipality. where every rate payer is a stockholder and un- der the law is entitled to treatment in common with his neighbors. The humblest man in the community is entitled to the same police protec- tion as the wealthiest. To be sure. he may not get 1t, but the law Is there just the same and in case he is not treated fairly in that respect the fault rests with the instruments, not with the law. The same thing Is true with reference to fire. If the home of a laborer is in danger the department is obliged to respond with the same dispatch that 1t would to call from the handsomest structure In the city. In like manner if the rate of taxa tion is 12 or 15 mills on the dollar for a man worth millions 1t cannot be any more to man who is not worth over S100. officials could de- feat the purpose of the law by keep ing down values on the man of great means and pushing them up to the top notch on the small holders, but as has already been stated in such an event the fault rests with those who have to do with 1t, not because of any flaw in the law.
 It Is true that many take the ground that the factories by whom all of us live should have water for nothing, but some very good citizens take exception to that. The proposi- ton may have some merit in 1t, but after all it Is hard to see what man owes a concern that gives him leave to toll for ten hours at wage sched- ule of 15 cents an hour. Isn't his la bor worth that? If this is admitted by what method of reasoning can anybody defend the contention that the small consumers should pay a high water rent in order that the larger ones may be supplied at re- duced rates, especially when the de- felt in the gross receipts has to be made up from the common people? There should be no discrimination in the price of water to the rich and the poor, but If there happens to be anything at all of that sort let it go towards the fellow closest to the wall. and if the well-to-do men of Waterbury care to speak this Is sub stantially what they would say on the subject. That's what they said when they were called together and consulted about a full valuation on the grand list when the law 10 that effect was passed. and there is no doubt but that they would occupy similar ground regarding watef