Evening capital and Maryland gazette. (Annapolis, Md.) 1910-1922, 1912-02-19
MONDAY. FEBRUARY 10. 1912.
THE WATER QUESTION.

VAALR N0LOAASNs
We notice in recent issue of the
Advertiser Republican that il is stated
1.-The water agitation has caused no lit
tie dissatisfaction among a large mum
Der of citizens" And that "a com
mittee of promInant citizens addressed
a letter to the council " Would il not
be more correct to state that the dis
satisfaction is amongst the committee
Of prominent citizensY And. If so, how
could it very well be otherwise seeing
that this very committee of prominent
citizens is personally and individually
interested in the sale of certain shares
of the water company's stock to the
city.
We confess that we are unable to I'M
derstand why the city council should
entertain arbitration for one moment,
as they have already gained possession
of the states stock of the water COM
pany. and therefore the city is as
thoroughly in control of the manage
ment Of The Water Works as though it
owned every share of the stock.
For many years past we have stead
fastly recommended the policy of the
City owning its Water Works. and
therefore we very highly commend the
City n purchasing the shares held by
the State-snd thus preventing the
water supply of our city from falling
into the hands of private monopoly.
But We are of opinion that the council
has committed grave error by agree
ing to arbitrate for the purchase of
the few remaining shares held by priv
ate individuals
IL will be remembered that at the
mass meeting held last October Mr..
Jno. Writ Randall spoke on behalf of
the private stock holders, and he then
said that If the city purchased the
states stock that it also ought to pur-
chase the stock held by private hold.
era. at the selling price of sixty-fve
dollars per share. or otherwise political
control of the Water company might
cause private stock to become worth
less. The City Council at once took
Mr.. Randall at his worldly passing
the resolution which authorized the
purchase of every share of stock held
by private individuals at sixty-five dol.
lars per share. And yet we are told
that large number of citizens are dis
satisfied
Why should they be dissatisfied?
What right havesthey to be dissatisfied?
Does ii not seem that there is some
latent or hidden meaning or cause?
Has the Water Company in the past
been with holding information as to its
true state. and paying too little divi-
dends If so, what was the object or
purpose of such a method or system?
And If such a method or system was
adopted, was it not wrong and highly
reprehensible? And further, if such
method or system was adopted, has
II not worked to the financial loss and
detriment of every person who has
owned stock in the past and sold it for
sixty five dollars or less per share?
Manifestly the stock in any COM
pany, when purchased by private in
dividual as an investment. is only
worth price or sum that is compati-
BILE and in keeping with the dividends
paid upon such stock: and therefore
the selling price of the past, namely,
sixty-five dollars per share. ought to be
the real and true value of the stock
held by these private citizens. To now
offer to srbitrate as to what its value
is can only be compared unto the ex-
pert testimony of murder trial
whose alienist witnesses are very apt
to testify in favor of the side by whom
they are engaged. But. a gamble is a
gamble. all the same. And. murder is
murder, all the same