The Caledonian-record. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1920-current, 1922-10-06

ing a fixed water meter rate sup
posed to be applicable to all alike
there is discrimination in rates
between those metered. The
Mayor is charged with the duty of
enforcing the law-but so far as
the rules, regulations, and rates
Of the water department are con
cerned-there will be no effort on
his part to pursue enforcement,
until fixed legal standards may be
recognized and established, from
out of the mess of chaos now en-
veloping the water department.
The city council is supposed to
care for these details but it
seems-even the din of a riot call
would hardly shake them out of
their CHASTITY silence and slumber
Oh the water system problems
'and who could blame them for
their sleeping sickness?
"Section 7 of the Act incorpor-
ating the water system placed the
administration of it in the hands
of the water commissioners under
the instructions of the voters. The
Actor section, cited has never
been repealed, unless indirectly by
certain clauses in the city Charter
that substitutes the city council to
the duties of the former water
commissioners-and expressly
vests in the city council exclusive
authority to administer the water
department, fix rates and make
rules and regulations without in
,structions from the city voters
+ would seem from the fore going
circumstances that the water de-
partment was operating under two
charters if that is tenable-and
the Mayor holds that the conflict
ing clauses in the two charters
governing the water department
SHOULD be purged of duplicity by
amendment and repeal to make
the city charter effective in law
respecting the voters right not 20
Instruct. The City Attorneys
opinion on the same question is
Numerically opposite. But ire
spective of the opinions--the gist
Of the whole matter is this:
Should such extensive authority
a. rests in exclusive control of our
water system and department vest
in an administrative board of five
officials-the city council three
Of whom are newly elected annu-
ally? Is it not too broad an au-
thority to vest in such narrow
numbers?
"Thc Raymond System-what
is it? | do not wish to be unmer-
ciful-but is it anything more
than crippled streak of broken
down old pipe line, frcshened up
with a trckle of spring water
bathing its rusty core? And a city
council paid ten thousand dollars
fol it. Fifteen thousand gallons
a day it delivers, erratically-
and not wholly satisfactory. |
Eighty thousand gallons a day |
VIC are spilling into the Clyde |
River from our overflow. Seven
hundred dollars paid for a dwelling |
house and lot on the shore of |
Derby pond-and the buildings
sold for one hundred dollars; to
forestall Ca too remote probabi
lily of water contamination.
These items are not cited in d
spirit of ridicule or sarcasm-or 10
do violence to the undoubted
q eat good faith and integrity
prompting the officials in their
purchase for the use of the city.
The point is this: Would they
have been acquired under the wis
dom and instructions of the voters
had an opportunity been granted
them to endorse the investment.
And why should this right of IN
structon have been taken away
from the voters in the framing of
the city chartcr-why not have
left it as it was in the water
charter-and do you wish to CON
tinue this arbitrary and exclusive
affecting the water sys-
tenn and department in the hands
Of the city council? If not-cor-