The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-02-18

largement of it's water pipes to some practicable moment" and also increase it's profits enormous ly.
 This is how the committee Gre quested the company not to me- ter.''
 As to the claim that the company can meter anyhow, the answer is. that, MT. Keating's committee to the contrary. the opposition of en- tirely unofficial persons has so far prevented the metering scheme from being carried out in it's en- tirety. and it will not be so long as active opposition exists.
 There only remains to consider that item which MT. Keating de- scribes as "the saving to consum- ers." There is no saving. What ever has been given, the meters have taken back. Whatever was given, the city was entitled to under the Greene contract.
 Under the system that existed prior to the 20 year contract the earnings of the Bridgeport Hy- draulic Company were more than $200, 900 a year and tWo-thirds of every dollar taken in went to earn ings.
 It is true that water in this vicin- ity is easy to dam, and that the company had damned cheaply and were delivering large quantities, and that the people of Bridgeport were using it.
 But in return for this the con- sumers were paying a profit of at least eight per cent. upon the cap- ital of the company and more, surely liberal margin.
 What justification could there be, then, for charging consumers by meter about five times as much for the same quantity of water. or in the contrary, giving them one fifth as much water for the same price.
 MT. Keating does well not to at tempt to show the effect of meter ing on the saving he claims has been realized to consumers.
 Fortunate indeed it is for the water consumers of Bridgeport that not all of the city's citizens were of so complaisant a mind as MT. Keating's committee, for, thanks to the very vigorous opposition of many persons. the meter business has been partially suspended. Yet enough meters have been installed to warrant the assertion that un- der the 20 year contract the total payments of consumers for water have greatly increased.
 They are saved nothing, but charged more.
 Why does MT. Heating fight to keep the contract in force? If, as the friends of the water company claim, the courts will sustain it, this would be at least a partial yindication for the committee, and no possible harm could come to the citys
 New Haven is supplied with wa
  Bridgeport?
 Why shouldn't the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company pay it's taxes like anybody else?
 The Greene contract requires ! the city to be supplied with "pure" water. The 20 year con- tract changes "pure" to whole some," a word of more restricted meaning.
 The Greene contract requires the company to place hydrants, and keep them always in order and to pay for the repair of them. The 20 year contract inn poses this burden upon the city.
 The Greene contract provides for a certain pressure of the Wa- ter at the hydrants. The 20 year contract removes this condition, and in place of it cuts down the general use of water to increase the pressure.
 Under the Greene contract the city is to be supplied with water as cheap as any other city, or as cheaply as New Haven, which is supplied without charge, while under the 20 year contract Bridgeport pays some $13,00O yearly, in cash, and about $34, 900 more in tax rebates.
 Under the Greene contract, if the company fails to do it's duty, it's charter immediately becomes forfeit and all it's powers cease. The city does not and never has needed other provision than this to secure from the company the performance of all its duties and promises.
 The 20 year contract is an ir- iuuity without justification. at the best. an attempt to evade the law which forbids the council making contracts for. more than a year.
 It is a permanent a,ffront. to the common sense of the citizenship, a source of public anger and an in- strument that the people have re- rudiated and are determined to de- stroy.