The San Francisco call., 1910-10-26
MAYOR EXPLAINS
WATER ATTITUDE
Tells Reasons Why He Opposed
Spring Valley Purchase
by City
Proposed Ordinance Contem-
plated No Improvements,
Says Mccarthy
October 26. 1910.


To the. Public: Mr.. Hearst of
New York, through his personal
newspaper, the San Francisco Ex-
aminer, has apparently decided.
without regard for truth. or for
the interest of this city. to con
tinue to say the thing that is
not" particularly regarding the
undersigned and the union labor
admnistra tion. His capacity for
indulging in subterfuge and mere
traYestY can only be compared with
his ardent desire to destroy the
reputa tions and characters of hon
est men, until they are brought to
the same level TO which his own
has descended long since.
EXPLAINS POSITION
In Yesterdays issue OF. his paper,
Mr. Hearst proceeds to set forth
the fact that the undersigned op-
posed the purchase of the Spring
Valley water company's property
by the city for s35. 5.ooo.o 900, and two
months ago advised the supervisors
to purchase the same for $4,000.
600, and he concludes his article.
after. calling to the attention Of the
claiming for such purchase the ex-
ira cost TO the city of $1,000.000
Mr.. Hearst OF New York, who has
for years, so far as he has been
able, taught the people of this city
to believe that the water supplied
by the company to the people of
this city was unfit for human con-
sumption, during that campaign,
sealed his lips, both editorially and
otherwise. in defense Of the people
of this city. and the question might
we'll be asked What was the cause
of this complete shutup and tie
up at that timer"
GIVES DETAILED REASONS
The undersigned fought the pur-
chase of the ,company's property at
that time and explained to the peo-
pie of this city why he fought it.
Since Mr.. Hearst of New. York. in
an effort to discredit the under
signed and the union labor admins
tration, and thereby cover up his
own perfidy. misrepFesenting me,
we will again recall the reasons
we gave at that time for. opposing
this deal, so ably fathered by
silence on the part of Mr.. Hearst.
by voting for the proposition as
it stood, we would exceed the citys
power TO bond itself by oyer SILL
court court, the he spring ValieS water tr
company, s public utility then
in use, adjudged as being within
the limit and Hetch Hetclly. for
which the undersigned and the peo--
pie generally have Tough so hard
and consistently, lost.
MEANT BIG Loss
2-The ordinance proposed the
city's taking over the company's
property subject to such title as the
company could al that time give.
3-The ordinance contemplated
paying AZ per cent interest on
municipal bonds used for the pur-
pose of purchasing the bonds of
the company outstanding then and
now vi, charging per cent interest, ,aa
the city of $4,000 annually, for
interest, and today, with $4,000,
600 increased bonded Indebtedness.
$4,000 per annum, by using Al
per cent instead of per cent bonds,
which is the rate which the COM
pany itself. is paying.
THE impounded money col
lected under Injunction at a Is per
cent increase on the rates fixed by
the supervisors was, through the
said ordinance. turned over to the
company instead of being distrib-
uted to the rate pay yers throughout
this city and county.
FIGURES ARE CITED
Thus it will be seen that if the
company's property was at that
time purchase under the proposed
ordinance, so ably supported by MIR.
Hearst of New York, by his silence,
the city would have paid $4,000
600 of the s5S,000,000 bond issue
then proposed, plus the s3,o0o,O0o.
rensrt the cost to tnoe the company th Of the
beds" then in litigation (similar
litigatio namely, Miller VS.. The
Bay Cities water company. having
been recently decided in favor of
the plaintiff, and against the COM
panyl. bringing the figure up to
S3s0O0,000. plus the sum of 50 3,000,-
600, the difference arising between
municipal bonds and the interest Of
per cent on comapny bonds, or
the sum of $4,000 per annun,
during the life of the bonds, max
ing total of $41.o0o,ooo, to which
must be added the Is per cent in
crease in rates impounded under
the injunction of the court, amount
ing to about 100000. which, by the
ordinance, vas to be given to the
cost to the city and its people of
Spring Valley and it's properties,
the huge sum of s41,300.000.
ORDINANCE INADEQUATE
But that was not all. The ordi-
nance did not provide a dollar for
the the sT sTste 81 tse Of
Spring Valley water company
Untruthful and disloyal as Mr..
Hearst has been, and is now, TO
this city, it is hardly to be ex-
pected that he would now publish
anything truthful regarding the
undersigned or his administration.
The city and its people can now
purchase the companys property,
and that. too. without purchasing a
number of lawsuits and the many
other Objectionable features here
inbefore mentioned which rendered
the purchase Of the Spring Valley
water company's properties in jan
uary last absolutely prohibitive.
P. II. MCCARTHY.
Mayor OF the City and County of
San Francisco.