The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1908-08-29
The City's Donation
to the Sewer Contractor.

The Journals adverse comment Oh
the city councils contribution of free
water to the sewerage contractor to
be used in completing his contract
with the city has elected general dis
cussion-so much, in fact, that our
esteemed contemporary, the Evening
News, comes to the defense, in a
lengthy editorial, of the five members
who voted for the gift.
Possibly our contemporary is right.
Possibly these members of the city
council did the proper thing We
don't pretend to know. But
Does anyone know of any other pri-
vate interest that is getting free
water from the city? Every tax-pay-
er in the city who uses water is also
Tpaying for the water. Is there any
reason why a man under contract to
perform a service for the city ana
who is getting paid for doing 1t
should be given free water while
others pay for what they get? Does
anyone imagine that the contractor
could have secured free water from
the old Pensacola Water Company
and is there any more reason for him
getting it now than there was before
the city acquired the waterwOTks? II
the city has water to give away why
not distribute it through the whole
system and thereby reduce water
rates, or allow it to be used by prI-
vate owners for the purpose of sprink-
ling streets?
Our confaun1~---s------'-- ----s---
Those who are familiar with the sit
uation know that the sewerage con-
tractor has lost large sums of money
already on the contract here" will no
doubt be a revelation to- the public
generally, and The Journal gravely
questions its correctness. The sewer
contractor may claim that he has lost
money. and some time ago he entered
suit for damages, if We remember cor
fectly, on the same ground. No doubt
also the testimony of our cOntem-
porary would be valuable evidence tor
the contractor in a suit of that kind,
but it would hardly be good policy to
concede the contractors claim in adj
vance of verdict even if the claim
proved a just one-and We do not be
Iieve in this case that there exists any
reason for such a claim at all.
The reference also to those who
are familiar with the situation" leads
us to the inquiry as to who these par
| ticular individuals are and how much
| they know about the matter which
has not been made public? In de
Tense of the gift, the News also says:
The Evening News is unable TO
| ascertain from any one just what
amount of water will be required
| The water committee can not tell, the
| bond trustees can not tell, and even
the contractor himself can not tell
! The best information that any Of
/ these officials can give is TO the effec1
! that the whole amount of water re
quired will not amount to more thar
/ a hundred or a hundred and NIT.
dollars.
! If that is true-if no one reall!
knows how much free water is to b,
| given away-then the gift is all tn,
more amazing We assumed tina
that some one knew about how mucl
water was to be used, but now W,
are informed that the council Ia!
made a gift of whose limit or ex.en
or value it knows absolutely nothing
j May We not ask now just one Oth2
question. viz: Is this free water I
be charged up to the bond trustees
account, to operating expenses. I
. profit and loss. or to whom or VII l,
The waterworks system, under mun1c
pal ownership, should show a prof
; to the city. Is this the way to max
: 1t do that?