El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1910-05-03

Question-Why doesn't the city cOun-
ell either settle the water question it
self, or give the people chance TO
settle it.
Answer give it up
Question-Have the people the right
to q hand In the game.
Answer think it's the peoples turn
at the bat
Question-Do the people of Ell Paso
private citizens, business men, city
/ fathers, politicians, property owners,
| taken individually or cOllectively-ap-
pear to appreciate the gravity of the
water question.
Answer-Not by an Elephant Butte
els there any other question of such
/ vital Importance to the health, happf-
! ness and prosperity of the people of
I, this city today as the water question.
Absolutely none
Q.-What is the net result TO date of
the efforts of the mayor, city council,
water company, commission No. j, COM
mission No. q receiver, court proceed
ings and master In chanceryf
A.-PrincipaIly disappointment and
expense.
Q.-Haven't we learned anything from
the confusion and wrangling of the last
IL months:
A-we've learned several things-so
thoroughly that it would be tiresome to
repeat them.
Where are now:
We're right up against it.
What are we up against.
Exactly the same proposition as that
SGT forth by the presidsnt of the water
company, just year ago in his letter
to the council: Namely-the city must
either raise the rates or buy the plant
The third alternative named then was
that the company go into the hands OF
a receiver. Well, they've gone In and
are about ready to come out, with
good big bill which the city-that is.
we. the people, will very likely have to
pay.
What have gained by this ring
arOund-rosy process.
A valuation on the plant considerably
higher than that which the water COM
pany agreed TO accept six months ago,
and is still willing to accept.
Are the rates which the city council
and water company agreed upOn fair
and justf
I spent three months as chairman of
commission No. l studying the water
question and 1 believe the amount of
gross revenue named by judge Savers
is about right and 1 further believe
that the schedule of rates agreed on by
the city officials and water company
as necessary to produce this gross reve-
nue/is tolerably fair and just
Is the compromise price of 1927 900
just price for the plant.
1 think for a cash consideration it is
high, but when we consider that $780,
900 of the purchase price was to be in
the form of Is year percent notes or
long term bonds 1 believe the price is
fair
What unset the trade between the
council and water company last weeke
The fact that the mayor wanted TO
limit the company to per cent earn
ings on the valuation of the plant
Was this percent gross or @ percent
net?
1t was 6 percent net after operating
expenses were paid
What was that in dollars and cents.
Six perce6t on s1.400,0OO (the value
of the improved and enlarged plant or
1900.
How much would that be reduced by
payment of interest and sinking fund:
The enlarged plant would be bonded
for about s1.000,O00. The interest on
those bonds at percent would be $50,
goo. per year and percent sinking fund
would be $4,000 more, or a total of
$4,000; this subtracted from $4,000
would leave an actual net income for
stockholders of $4,000 per year. \ 1
percent charge for depreciation would
just eat up this $4,000, and the stock
holders would have left not a red cent
for dividends on their investment of
several hundred thousand dollars
If the city council should aglee to
waive this percent earningA Clause,
would the water company stan, b make
n very big profit I'm the course of
yearsf
As the city grows the gross returns
would certainly incl ease in a much
greater ratio than the expenses, and the |
profits might in few years reach Is or |