St. Johns review. (Saint Johns, Or.) 1904-current, 1913-06-13

10 the taxnafrr Why taXcs
arr hirh in Sl lohns ON june
3 thc cih nlI appropriated
$500 in ihr Willamette boulevard
case What fm $3.50 to help
uuuCrff onntm Un thc nmth
side of fhr boulevard 6Nht prop.
Cfiy 0urCfH m thc aouth Eidc
and $3.50 Oh hg'p prumrty owners
un thc south side hrhi hack
against property owners ou thc
north .dc What interest has
thc taxpayer ir thy hnht amy.
hoWl None whatsoever The only
persons either benefited w in-
iurcd U thc local hrht Be- The
property owners along the street
u question The taxpayer Is
not "a party t0 The uit at all CN.
ccpt to pas thc hiIl $500 spent
Tor which tho taxpayer cannot
hope to receive amy benefit what
ever
And at fhp same council meet
inu cX.City Attorney Stroud was
given "a job at "a Zee of 5000.
What forl Nobody seems 90
know exactly Some say that
Mr. Stroud Is 10 look up al the
court decisions relative to the
powers of the Railroad Commits
sion 90 regulate public utilities.
What forl Oh. SO that in case
the Railroad Commission ever
should render "a decision in the
St. Johns water rate case. and
that IL the water company should
appeal 10 the courts from the
decision of the Railroad Commits.
sion should all these things ever
happen then these court decis-
ions would come in handy. !
asked Councilman Wilcox why
Mr.. Stroud was employed in the
case and he said. iocularly pre-
sumo. "Well. you know he is one
of our citizens. and has TO live
and we had to help him out a lit
tle." " Wouldn't that cork you?
The fact is. there is very little
for an attorney 10 do in the wa
ter rate case. apd no necessity
for employing additional legal
counsel at this time. There is
no question of law involved at
this time only = question of
fact. AZ least three basic facts
must be determined before the
Railroad Commission can fix a
reasonable water rate. These
facts are:
First. a fair value of the prop
erty. Second. cost of mainte-
nance. Third, cost of operation.
The Commission has sent out its
engineer TO ascertain the value
of the property. OF course the
Water Company will set forth
its estimates of the value of its
plant.
If the city council would di-
rect the city engineer. or if he
has not the time, employ some
other qualified engineer, TO as
certain the value of the water
plant. 10 compare with and check
up the engineers of the Com
mission and Water Company. J.
think they woud be spending the
taxpayers money much more
wisely. The cost of maintain
ance and operation can be, and
should also be ascertained.
Five hundred dollars of the
taxpayers money spent at one
council meeting for which ! con-
tend the taxpayer will not re-
ceive anything like his moneys
worth is going some. especially
for reform council. | wonder
what would have happened if we
had not turned the "rascals"
out last electionl
| am criticising the acts of the
council because as a citizen and
taxpayer ! have a right TO do. |
So when | think they make a !
and from what / know |
of these eases. and from my eX- |
perience must say that the acts |
Of the council in both these cases |
were most unwise. ! do not |
charge yici0usness or willful !
wrong doing. only just "easy
marks" victims of jawbone ar,
lists, that's all. S. c. Cook.