Putnam patriot., 1928-03-01
EBATE TIE WATER
 WORKS QUESTION
Concrete vs. Steel standpipe vs,
 Reservoir Economy Vs. Saving

That the citizens Of Putnam can 7et together and quietly and unim- rassionedlv discuss their differences 0f opinion on a public question was emphasized at the mass meeting in ihe Municipal building last Thurs dav evening. The meeting was cal led for the purpose Of debating the water works question. lf nothing was actually decided it was certain v determined that a quiet. orderly discussion and public airing of pri. vate opinions may be had in this city ! This was one . the outstanding i features of the mass meeting.
 The meeting was called to order 1 by Attorney Irving H Miron, whe has acted for the so-called citizens committee or committee of citizens That he anticipated that the debat, might become impassi0ned was evi. denced when he urged that those who spoke refrain from personalities Of mud singing" While the sugges. ton was timely. it appeared. as the evening wore on. 10 be unnecessary.
 Judge M II. Geissler was elected chairman of the meeting and it was voted Co allow those who were to speak not over twenty minutes.
 Water Boards Statement
 Tho discussion was opened hy Her. bert J Smith, member of the board Of water commissioners Mir. Smith read prepared statement outlining the situation, from the angle of the commissioners. from the inception of the proiect-and before down to the present
 Mayor Richard, appearing. he said, az a member of the water committee of the common council, outlined the situation from the viewpoint of this committee.
 City Engineer George W. Perry, Alderman Warren $. Ames. r C. Rogers. Alexander Gilman and N. Chester Elliott. water commissioners. 1. H. Miron, Judge Henry N Benoit, C. Dwight Sharpe. E. D. Bugbee, Archibald Macdonald, Jr., and n few other citizens. took part in the dis eusaion. Several times there was ap- plausc.
 \ representative of a steel stand pipe construction concern and q rep- resentative of the Portland Cement Association. urged the advantages of steel over concrete and vice versa.
 The discussion throughout was lit- tle different from what has been heard in the common council cham Der. most of which has been published in the local newspapers. To many of those present it was perhaps an al together different version than they had heard before concerning the whole situation Possibly one or both sides changed the viewpoint of some present Doubtless many were en-
 ghtencd.
 Indefinite issue
 What the reaction would be could not be foreseen There were no judges of the debate. Had there been it would have been a difficult matter for the judges to make deci- ion unless the issue was more defi- nitely framed As the situation was discussed 1t appeared that both sides were right If the debate was pre- iicated on the premise that the city of Putnam was aiming Co save money no doubt this would be accomplish cd by putting up a small tank to replace the Oak Hill standpipe. Onl he other hand. if the debate was Co be decided on the best manner to remove the existing fire hazard, pro- vide a 2 100000 gallon reserve. and do . job that will be permanent and will not call for periodical expendi- I tures. then an entirely different is- sue had Co be decided.
 In other words, if the question Is wholly a matter of finance, as one side predicated it's argument upon. there could be but one decision. if, Dn the other hand the question IS one ,f providing a 2.000,0 900 gallon re- serve supply. ample water pressure, and adequate fire protection as pre- safety measure, then the whole aspect of the debate was chang "a to perplex the judges, had there been judges to perpleN-