The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1909-09-09


The Water Company in Tuesdays
issue of the Staff says:
"To the People of Johnson City:
We renew our offer made TO the
Board at the time we submitted our
prospOstion to sell to the City for the
sum of $245,WO,"
Why have a renewal of this offer?
Is the Company not satisfied with the
the fiat and positive, unanimous re-
lection of its proposition by the Board?
Is the Company's water supply any
more adequate now or any further dis
engaged from the Soldiers Home en-
I.tanglement thun it was on August 5th?
Do the people want water supply
that maybe forever in jeopardy from
the acts of an upper user? Does JOHN
son City want to fight the Home and
the Water Company for division of
water after ii has paid for it?
When the Water Company holds
both Companies and through them
supplies both places it may divide the
water SO as to cover as far as possible
the inadequacies of both consumers.
But having, as it now has, an offer of
more money from the Home, if it will
furnish more water to the Home will
there not be very strong motive, af-
ter it gets $245, 100000 out of Johnson
CITY to take more water from the
source of supply and meet the increas-
ed demand at the Home. Has this
Water Company been so liberal in its
bestowal of water on Johnson City as
to lead any body to believe that it will
| forego this large increase from the
Home in order that a bountiful supply
may go to the people of the town.
Voter remember, the offer, the PROPOSE
ton, neither one, offers or proposes a
maximum or minimum amount of
water or any basis of division at the
source of supply.
Why not? Because the amount the
Company could sell would be wholly
inadequate for the city's supply and
if it dared to name it every sensible
man would know it and condemn it at
once.
At the same time any definite and
fixed proportion which it might con-
tract to retain for the Soldiers Home
would necessarily be so small and in
adequate to the demands of that insti.
tuition as 10 cause the loss of its con
, tract for that supply. 1t was, there
fore, forced in its offer and proposition
to keep quiet on n subject, which tc
take position upon would have amount
ed to instant ruin. Voter beware.
And now the amount of this offer, is
/ it any smaller than il was on August
, 5th? No, only $545,000.00. For what
The big offer does not say. 1t covers {
space of sixteen by twenty-four inches
e on top corner and ought to be wortl
, considerable money as an advertise
| ment. But what is it worth to thu
p voter for information rs TO what he il
f going to get for that S245, 100000? Doe
, it give the cost of material and labor i
( took to build this plant? Never wore
{ on this subject. The Company in |
pleading, under oath, made by its pro
per representative, filed October 2rd
1898, in the Chancery Court at John
son City, stated the plant had cost $50,
I O6e 90. It's own language in said plead
Z ing, is as follows:
"About September 10Th, 1890, 4 en-
\ tered into contract with the Board O
Mayor and Aldermen of the Town 0
johnson City to put in waterworks Il
J supply said town and the citizen
thereof with water. That in pursu;nle
Z with said agreement, and for the pHT
4 poses stated it constructed and put int
! operation a system of waterworks at
: cost of over $90OOO.O0.' ~
Z 1t is bag leap in the dark for tn
! voter to take, when he says, after
J user of twenty years, the value of thi
! plant has jumped from the cost pric
i of 500, 600 to the value of S245,0OO.
< Will you presume that any such i'm
z provements have been made in extal
9 sions There have been extension
j made, but no one who does not see tn
d invoices will ever be fool enough TO bt
u lieve from big advertisement that tn
n cost of such extensions have risen fror
z 800, 600 10 S245,OOO. The company mus
= have considerably more one and tw
y inch mains than Blevins and Dunla
D could find. 1t may be that twent