The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1907-09-14

he lOilONluS I0ltcI SiSAS0 ny q
| number of tax payers and citizens
has been handed to the Daily Record
for publication:
An Open Letter.
Roswell, N. M, Sept. Ia, 1907.
To Our Fellow Citizens:
In the matter of the water works
proposition which is to be passed on,
Monday, the 18th inst, The Daily Rec
ord has pertinently said that the chief
objection seems to be that the people
are without information, both as to
the engineer who planned the works,
and as to the plan itself.
Feeling that we ought to know
something about so momeltous mat
ter before voting on it, and having in
view the welfare of the city, as well
as our interests as taxpayers, we
have gone over the matter carefully
and drawn our conclusions. We decid
ed to make our conclusions public,
not because we assume any more int
crest in the city than our neighbors,
that We seek to dictate to anyone
but because we have taken time to in
vestigate, and We have not found an
other person VINO has done SO, or who
claims to know anything about the
legal import of the proposition.
The Realty Board did investigate
certain phases of the case and made
some wise suggestions; but before
they can be adopted this proposition
must be rejected and new one form
ulated. 1t takes two to change con-
tract after it is ratified.
In the first place, we are legally
advised that the very moment this
matter is ratified at the polls (if it
should be done) Mr.. Ellis will have
a valid claim against our city-which
means against us-for the sum of
Sc, ,25O.OO, even if we fail to place our
bonds and the work is never done.
Six thousand, two hundred and fifty
it be wise to place it in jeopardy at
a time when the best mercantile pa
per is bearing per cent, on the eve
of our presidential election, and When
every known factor combines to make
hard bond market? Would we not
do better to decide on wnat we want
after a full understanding by all of
us, and then take time to place our
bends without a forfeit hanging over
us?
We are all il favor of water works
on fair basis and one that we, as
people, can afford; but there are ques
tions, and grave questions, too. such
as raising our already exorbitant tax
rate, the extension of our sewer sys-
tenn, the possibilities of litigation
arising out of hasty action, that We as
people ought to consider. Is it wise
to force these issues on the people
coupled to a proposition to expe1d
$125, 900 in a way that the people do
not understand?
There are about 130 windmills in
the city, costing with their connec-
tions, approximately $52, 900; also 120
artesian wells costing, with connec-
tions, approximately $4,000; a grand
total of $4,000 When these plants
were put III Tie OWAClS WOAO dpp1duQ-
ed as public-spirited and progressive
citizens, willing to help develop and
beautify the city. Without discussing
the doctrine of municipal ownership
in general, is there not moral ques-
ton involved which might make its
application to this particular case
very unjust Many of these improve
ments were put in before they became
a part of the city. and we are advised
that serious legal complications may
arise and that there is grave doubt
about our being able to force the pres
ent issue. even if we wish to do SO.
Had we not better decide these
things, both moral and legal, before
binding our city to a contract from
which no after-decision win relieve
us2
II may be urged. and it is urged.
that the construction company viii
take our bonds: but II they viii not
bring the amount required BY law in.
the open market and the construction
company takes them at par. then It
stands to reason that Il. must cover
the difrerence kdther Il over-charge