New Britain herald., 1915-04-15

ought to go to the voters?" asked Alerdman Parker.
 If it goes though the council to- night and is rejected by the voters it will be sidetracked for four years" replied the corporation council. If 1t is rejected by the council now it can be brought up before the council next year and a whole year will be gained. I don't know whether I should give my personal opinion al- though I am frank to say I have one. The city is now facing big bond is sues. Just how large they will be no one knows. It is estimated, for in stance, that one issue will be for $500, ,OO0 for the sewage disposal plant. Until the proper amount has crystal ized into definite shape I believe 5it would be unWise to go ahead with the municipal lighting project
 Corporation Counsel Cooper then proceeded to show what the probable cost of such an undertaking might be as was printed in the Herald Tues day. He placed the cost at over s1,50O,000. 'f1"" .
 'I belive it unwise to take any, fur ther steps until the city knows just where it's at as we are now going as fast as we ought to go towards mortgaging the future"
 '1. am not forgetting the $50,00O in park bonds for parks worth $50, ,000," replied Alderman Parker, but don't you suppose that we might gain a point on our lighting contract with the United Electric Light and Water company if we showed them that we are still thinking of embarking in the business?"
 Water in Lighting Stock.
 The corporation council replied that the contract has eight or nine years to run. He said he thought the off, cers of the United company were terribly handicapped by the water that has been poured into the stock in recent years. It is a case of high finance, he said.
 Councilman Voight brought out a new point when he said that any appraisal made on the plant of the company would be based on its val ue when the first vote was taken last year. If the city throws up the pro- ject now it will mean that an ap praisal will be based on the value of the plant when another vote is taken by the common council. By that time, he said, the value. might be a great deal higher than it was last year.
 Motion to Table Beaten.
 A vote on Alderman Kerwins mo- tion to table indefinitely was taken. It was defeated, 19 to 5. Those voting against it were Aldermen Lawyer, Jes- ter, Warwick and Parker and Council men Dolan, Anderson, May, Uno T;oI, ,cto no Chamberlain, Voight, Hewitt, Wagner H. Johnson, StadIer, Ohman and Do Ian. Those voting in favor were AL derman Kerwin and Councilmen Brzozowy, Riley, Degnan, Paonessa and McCrann.
 Alderman Lawyer moved that the original resolution be rejected with the understanding that such action was not because the council was op- posed to the plan but rather because of the financial condition of the city. Councilman Paonessa was puzzled. He could not see any differences between that motion and the one that had just been rejected.
 Jester Fears More Water.
 There were more speeches. Coun- cilman Wagner said he could not see any harm in adopting the resolution and Alderman Jester said the com pany might pour in fifty more tons of water into it's stock before anl sub sequent council decided to go into the business. Councilman Voight ex- plained that he would vote against the project if the action of the coun- cil were final but he could not see any harm in referring it to the peo- pie. It was said last year. he claimed. that the United company intended very soon to increase the value of it's plant. President Warwick, in reply to this. said President Campbell of the lighting company was in town Tues