Los Angeles herald., 1909-08-04
REFUSE TO ACCEPT
MAYORS PROPOSAL
OPPOSING CITIZENS REPLY TO
LETTER
Anti-Bond Issue Party Flatly Declines
to Proceed Along Lines Sug-
gested by City's Ex-
ccutiVe
rSnecial to The Herald. ]

SpeCldl 10 4 ne I1aAd4Ai'l
PASADENA, Aug. 3.-Dividing the
Waterhouse, or anti-Water, bond issue
people among themselves and throwing
down the gauntlet to the adminlstra-
tion forces, there came a letter to the
mayor and council this morning from
the so-called citizens committee Wnlcn
has had charge of the plans or thelt
party for the appointment OF a poaru
to investigate the water problem OF lhc
CITY with a view to securing municipal
ownership. It is not conciliatory let
ter nor does it suggest compromise. II
states fatty the adherence of the com
mittee to the original suggestions MADE
to the mayor and is regarded IN gen
eral as the end o. the negotiations Al
though the administration party mas
as vet announced no plans, it will prob
ably proceed with the water question
as before, bringing up the question OF q
bond issue for the acquisition of the
plants at the earliest possible moment
which is in April Of next year.
The letter sent by the citizens COM
mittee was not the unanimous express
sion of opinion of its members. There
was a minority of five, three of them
George Kernaghan, William Thums
and Lockwood who did not approve
and voted against it, 1t is understood
q minority letter was presented Whlcn
practically met the suggestions OF
Mayor Farley. But this is not expected
to see the light The meeting of the
citizens committee at which the let
ter sent today was finally adopted DID
not lack for heat Mr.. Kernaghan, who
has stood among the leaders in the
water fight, left before it was over.
1t is considered by the leaders of the
administration ranks that the last
word has been said and it is probable
nothing more will be done save for
mally to acknowledge the receipt of to-
days communication. The essential
part of this follows:
Committee Stands Firm
"Thomas Farley Mayor: Replying
to your communication of July L, the
citizens committee begs leave to say
that after thoughtful consideration
thereof and of the several written COM
munications which have passed be-
tween US on the subject of water sup
ply for Pasadena, this committee sees
no reason to recede from the position
taken by it in its letters to you OF
June Il and June 90.
"The main difference between US, as
we view it, has been not as to the size
Of the committee, but as to the scope
of the proposed investigation and as
to the manner in which the informa-
tion obtained by such proposed inVesti-
cation should be brought to the knOWl-
edge of the citizens of Pasadena. we
have insisted that such investigation
should proceed on broad lines that all
the proceedings of the committee
should be given full publicity, and that
II the committee disagreed the reports
of the majority and minority should be
published.
I'VE cannot agree with you in the
conditions which you now impose on
the acceptance of our proposal namely,
that the joint committee shall select
another committee of three, that such
new committee shall report what 1t
thinks Pasadena should do to acquire
a municipal water supply and that
both sides should agree to stand by
that report. We see no object in our
appointing a joint committee and then
robbing it of all its powers except that
of selecting another committee of three,
as you propose.
'oYou say that the chief objection Of
the council and yourself to appointing
a committee of five from each side, as
suggested by us. is that you believe
the committee would not agree and
that there would be two reports. IT,
peradventure, there should be a dis
agreement, which we hope that there
may not is it not fair and reasonable
that there should be 81 report from
each side giving such statements of
fact and such reasons for their posi-
tion as each may deem best, and that
such reports should be given simulta-
neously to the public?
Proposal Declined
eve have presumed that such joint
advisory committee working in the
public interest without COMPENSATION,
would be made up of representative
citizens and that their views and opin-
ions, even when conflicting, would be
Of value to the voters seeking informa-
tion, We see no reason for keeping the
public in the dark or for smOtheriug
the information by means of a select
committee of three paid experts, who,
after all, would simply give their own
opinions. We have from the first fa
vored a joint advisory committee, not
an arbitration board We do not think
questions of public policy should BE-
settled by arbitration, but rather that
the people should be furnished with all
the facts and arguments pro and con,
and then be allowed to decide for them
selves.
''Again, we do not feel as a commit
tee representing a large body Os
voters that we ought to attempt to
bind either ourselves or them by the
result Of any such arbitration proceed
ing as you propose. Whatever moral
restraint there might be in case you
appointed such committee, we doubt
whether any agreement by you to aC-
Cept and carry into effect the report of
such committee would legally bind
either the mayor or the city council in
it's future action.
we believe that this Joint advisory
committee, or any number of the COM
mittee not less than three, should have
the right to obtain at the expense Of
the city such legal counsel and such
expert advice as they might consider
necessary or advisable in their inVesti-
cations but we do not think a joint
committee should be bound to adopt
such counsel or advice unless, in the
opinion of the committee it is wise. In
other words we would make the ad-
visory committee the responsible body
and not the experts it may select
1--WE therefore must decline your new
proposal Very respectfully,
THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE.
Edmund d. Barry Chairman