Southwest Washington labor press. [volume] (Hoquiam, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1925-03-20
\ APPEAL BIZ MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL
Continued from page one)

sucn Rights should not De cancelled.
The defense urged against the can
ISOLATION of the Rights in our answer
IS the fact that Malinowsli had, in
rood faith, enterez into negotiation
Nth the City for the disposition of
his Rights and the people of the
City, in good faith, had voted to de-
velop the water and power resources
of the Wynooche, and that the only
reason the City was unable to go
ahead with the development was the
litigation pending to enjoin the City;
that the City Council, as soon as the
Supreme Court had held that the
propositions should be separately
submitted, passed an ordinance pro-
viding for the submission of the wat
er proposition separately and If such
proposition carried that it would
submit the power proposition.
When this answer was filed with
the Supervisor of Hydraulics, know
ing that the election was to be held
on March Gath on the water prop
osition, he set the date of hearing
for March 30th, to await the out
come of the water election on the
oath.
If the first step in the water and
power development, namely the wat
er proposition, is carried, we will
then be able to contest the cancelia-
ton of the Malinowski permits. lf
not there is no way of preserving the
water or power rights for the people
of this city.
The voters must not lose sight of
the fact at all times that combined
water and power project is the ulti-
mate plan now as it was in December,
1923.
The Grays Harbor Railway 6 Light
Company made proposition to the
Mayor and City Council for the joint
development of the Wynooche River
at some future time. The water de-
velopment to be by the City The
power development to be by the Com
pany.
In the opinion of the Mayor and
undersigned members of the City
Council the acceptance of this prop
osition was unwise.
The Mayor and City Council had
no authority to accept such a prop
osition. The people of the City of
Aberdeen had already voted for the
development of the combined water
and power project. The electors of
the City had expressed themselves
upon that subject. For the Mayor
and City Council to assume to over
rule the expressed will of the people
would have been an act for which
they would have been condemned.
The joint development by the City
and the Company would have jepor-
died the freedom of the City in all
of its present and future relations
with the Company.
1t would have permitted this adj
ministration to have surrendered, for
all time, the right of the people to
have entered upon the development
of such project as municipal enter
prise.
We felt that we could not con-
scientiously compromise the rights of
the people with a private corporation
in such a compact.
AS a physical development it was
unwise for the City to join with
private utility. The amount of wat
err that would be used would increase
as the flow of the Wishl1ah decreased
from logging operations, and as our
growth increased. It would be inn
possible to measure the future needs
of the water for water consumption
for all future time. If the City de-
veIops the water and also the pow
er rights, it could, as the owner of
both, utilize the use of each to the
greatest advantage of the other.
This it would be impossible to do by
q partnership with the Company.
If the City paid proportion of the
cost of construction for water de-
velopment and the Company paid for
the proportion of the cost of con-
struction for power purposes, after
the project had been paid for, the
City would own its part of the. pro-
ject and the Company would own its
proportion of the project.
As the consumer must pay in any
event for the cost of the project, we
could see no good reason why, as long
as the City could issue utility bonds,
WITHOUT PLEDGING THE PROP
FRTY OF THE TAX PAYER, the
City should not construct the united
project, as previously authorized by
vote of the people of the City.
We want to assure the people that,
ssnder the law providing for the IS
suance of the bonds, as provided IN
the proposition submitted at the COM
ing election, NOT ONE CENT, in
either principal or interest, to pay
III theabonds, can be raised by tax
Eion.
Under the law the only source OF
Acome for the payment of principal
nd interest on the bonds is the rev.
niue of the system. It viii be so
Expressly provided in the bonds that
nre issued.
The need of water and power is
Is great now as it was when the peo-
bic voted upon the propositions on
A.rax,,l.ax 1at 1924 The CITY Coun-