The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-02-24
Continued From First Page.)

luton Is the proper course for this
 board to pursue
 Bias may warp opinion but I am not persuaded that the great majority of the voters would not judge this question as it should be judged and settle it for all time. I am not a pessi- mist as to popular vote.
 The people are very apt to come to a proper and just conclusion. The resolution it must be remembered does vote before this money shall be ap- propriated. but that we shall go on year after year making this appropria- tion until we are ordered not to by the popular vote.
 X If I had learned prior to our pre- l1minary meeting. what I have since learned. should at that time have grappled with the thing. as did our president and MT. Osborne, and should have voted f1atly against the appro- priation. but it was my desire at that time to be fair all around that led me to introduce the resolution.
 T still believe that perhaps choose the lesser of the two evils is support ing this resolution. for if there is a de- sire on the part of the people to main tain this contract and they vote to do so the contract remains unchanged and the Hydraulic Co. will continue to en- joy the privileges of the contract.
 There is no special dignity attached to the Common Council which made this contract which is not possessed by the Common Council which has asked us not to appropriate this money, in order that the contract may cease to exist. Anything that requires an ex- penditure of $252. .000 of the peoples money in seven years. when that ex- penditure is not necessary, is matter for this board or any other part of the city government to consider.
 'In presenting this opposition I feel that. knowing what I do of this mat ter. am doing my duty by my people. This opposition to this contract is not a mushroom that has grown up in a single night. It is grim realty and the people should have the opportunity to cause the Hydrau ulic Co. to operate under the Nathaniel Greene charter if they so desire. I want to show you that this water question has been a source of agitation here for the past 50 years and that the Greene charter which dates back to 1853 is not a docu- ment without standing in the courts"
 MT. Phelan then read the Greene charter and it's history since it went into effect, showing that at one time the predecessor of the Bridgeport Co. had protected itself from an invasion of the city by an opposi- tion company known as the Citizens Water Co. which had secured the right to lay pipes in the streets. He showed how the company possessing the Greene charter had appealed to the courts and the latter had ruled that the charter gave them the exclusive right to fur nish water to the citizens of Bridgeport and it's inhabitants.
 ''The company holding the charter" he continued. "could not be branded as monopoly because it was protect ed by that section of the charter by which it was agreed that it would fur nish water to the city and it's inhabit- ants as cheaply as it was furnished any other city by privately owned That section alone was held by the courts to protect the peo- pie from any tendency on the part of Ebe company to charge the city exor- bitant prices for water.
 Considering this clause. you will nave to show me where thes city of New Haven. with it's privately owned water works, has ever paid anything for the water it has used for municipal purposes during the past seven years. or that it ever will. Why should we pay from the treasury of the city $40,- 100 annually if this company is able to fulfill it's contract with the city, say SAC, 1000. It may be a, little more or a little less. There is $12. .00G we pay for nydrants. there is about $3.000 we pay fer water in the public schools and other public buildings, and there is what we give them in the way of rebate upon their taxes. I take 1t that he Hydraulic Go. has more than $1,- 100000 worth of property within the confines of the city 4 know that it las been said that the property of the Hydraulic Co. has been valued at $6,000O00 by the committee that advised this 20 year contract. From investigation. and going over statistics concerning the valuation of he water works of other cities the size of Bridgeport and larger, find hat $4,000.000 would probably not be m unfair valuation.
 "It is fair to say that $2. 900 of this mount is represented by the pipes and | equipment taxable within the city.
 But what have we done under this | contract? We have allowed the value if this company to appear on the tax | looks at $1.O0O. 900.
 "One million dollars is an arbitrary | igure. As long as this contract exists l ve cannot collect taxes on more than | his amount. The figure should be | 1, 800, 900 more. At the tax rates which | ave prevailed since this contract has xisted we are giving the company in he reighborhood of s22, 900 annually in axes Add this amount to the S15,000 | which we agree to pay for taxes and it mounts to $37.500. In seven years we ay over s250.00O into the treasury of he Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. which we you'd not have to pay if the Hydraulic 10. was obliged to live up to it's chart r.
 Now I don't blame the Bridgeport Hydraulic company for getting paid for s water. but I do think that the con- ract is unfair to the citizens of this ity. We know our obligation under he contract makes us give up the lore fair and equitable conditions mich were ours under the Greene harter. I am convinced gentlemen hat we are doing wrong in keeping his contract alive: yet. for fear that
 might be said drew any gentleman the board into something he had ot had the opportunity to inquire into s I have. let us send it to the people," Mr. Phelan closed with a motion that is resolution be adopted and the mo- on was seconded by Bernard Setzer. [r. Loewith asked why MT. Phelan did ot make his argument to the Common ouncil as he did not see that the { oard of Apportionment had any pow rs in the matter. Besides he said, l- the Supreme court has just decided 1 the police case that we only have over to make appropriations" Allan w. Paige arose to the defense