. 
 
 The Water Question 
 
 Reply of 
 
 PRESIDENT TEV1S 
 
 OF 
 BAY CITES WATER CO. 
 
 TO 
 
 MR. CHICKERING
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 SANTA BARH*i?\ 
 
 / / 
 
 REPLY OF PRESIDENT TEVIS TO 
 MR. CHICftERING. 
 
 W. H. CHICKERING ESQ., 
 
 Attorney for the Contra Costa Water Company, 
 
 Oakland, California. 
 SIR: 
 
 There appeared in the Oakland newspapers of January 
 3. 190-.. a c( mmunirati' n. sirned with y ur name, in which 
 you address t< me certain que:-tkns to which you may or 
 may TV t have expected a rep y. 
 
 As the questi' ns were definitely framed, and concerned 
 the matter of the pn p- sed municipal water plant which the 
 representatives of your city have se'ected as a suitab'e plant 
 to be purchased by the citizens of Oakland, I, now the bond 
 ordinance having finally passed, answer your questions in 
 detail. 
 
 In prefacing my replies, however, I will say that your 
 questions do not come to me in the aspect of a sincere request 
 for information sought for proper purposes. Your "letter" 
 was not sent to me; indeed, the first and only knowledge I 
 have ever had of its existence was when my attention was 
 called to its appearance in the Oakland newspapers. It was 
 obviously issued for the purpose of influencing the people of 
 Oakland to the advantage of your corporation client in the 
 contest which it is now waging against them, and the ques- 
 tions contained in the letter were manifestly there with a 
 view, and in the hope, of obtaining from me some statement 
 which might be distorted in furtherance of that end. 
 
 The first six of your series of seventeen questions are 
 directed to the titles upon which rest the properties which 
 the Bay Cities Water Company is now offering to sell the 
 City of Oakland. I will remark that those titles are perfect. 
 They are founded upon most familiar law, upon which we 
 have the written opinions of many leading lawyers of San Titles to Bay 
 Francisco. The officers of the City of Oakland have been citie properties 
 advised of the titles and the muniments upon which they P erfect - 
 rest. I would say further that before the city need obligate 
 itself to purchase the properties, the soundness of those titles 
 must appear to the satisfaction of the attorneys of the City 
 of Oakland. Further than this, our company remains obli- 
 gated, not only to insure the validity of those titles, but also 
 the quiet possession of the property itself; and to such end Oakland need 
 it stands ready to deposit whatever security may be required. not commit her- 
 
 The questions which you present, with their answers, self to purchase 
 are 'iS follows: until satisfied as 
 
 First When did the Bay Cities Water Company acquire * title - 
 the rights it claims to the lands it proposes to convey to the 
 City of Oakland? 
 
 ANSWER We own the lands absolutely in fee simple, 
 having acquired them by purchase at various intervals since
 
 the incorporation of our company. 
 
 Second When did the Bay Cities Water Company acquire 
 the rights to the waters it proposes to convey to the City, 
 and how were those rights acquired? 
 
 ANSWER By the usual legal methods subsequent to 
 the incorporation of our company. 
 
 Ripar '*nt rfered Third At the time or times of such acquisition, or at 
 
 n .* any subsequent time, has it acquired, either by grant, con- 
 
 demnation, or in any way, the rights of riparian owners along 
 the streams below the sites of its proposed dams ? 
 
 ANSWER It has not; no such rights are necessary. 
 Riparian owners will not be interfered with. 
 
 Fourth What at present becomes of the storm waters 
 it proposes to impound? 
 
 ANSWER They run to waste, into the Bay of San Fran- 
 cisco. We have not attempted to trace them further. 
 
 Fifth Is it not true that these waters furnish the pres- 
 ent supply for the Niles Cone, so termed? And does the 
 Bay Cities Water Company claim rights superior to the rights 
 of those who now take water from the artesian belt surround- 
 ing the Niles Cone? 
 
 ANSWER The waters we take do not furnish the supply 
 Niles con wa f f tlie ^iles Cone. 
 
 tcr not interfered Sixth Has it obtained from all, or from any, of the 
 
 with. people using such storm waters in these artesian belts, the 
 
 right to impound the same? 
 
 ANSWER It has not and requires no such right. 
 
 Not necessar Seventh Must the wooden conduit it is proposed to use 
 
 that conduit cross * n transmitting the water from the reservoirs to the City of 
 Spring Valley Oakland necessarily cross the lands of the Spring Valley 
 lands. Water Company in its course from the contemplated reser- 
 
 voirs to the City of Oakland? 
 
 ANSWER It is not necessary that the conduit cross any 
 lands of the Spring Valley Water Company. 
 
 Conduit will not Eighth Is it or is it not the fact that the wooden conduit 
 
 pass through, un- ^ or a distance f several miles is to be laid at the bottom of a 
 der OP near Spring reservoir intended to be constructed and filled with water 
 Valley reservoir, by the Spring Valley Water Company? 
 
 ANSWER Such is not a fact. The pipe line will not at 
 any point be laid within the limits of any lands of the Spring 
 Valley Water Company possible of being used as a reservoir. 
 
 Ninth Has it acquired from that company the right 
 . to lay its wooden conduit aloner, over, upon, through or under 
 any of the lands of the Spring Valley Water Company? 
 ANSWER It has not. 
 
 Tenth If it is in contemplation to lay its wooden con- 
 duit for a distance of several miles at the bottom of a reser-
 
 voir of the Spring Valley Water Company, how are repairs to 
 be made in event of a break in the woodSti conduit? 
 
 ANSWER We have no intention of laying any part 
 of the wooden conduit within the limits of any Spring Val- 
 ley reservoir. 
 
 Eleventh Can the Bay Cities Water Company, as a pri- 
 vate corporation, contemplating not the furnishing of water 
 to a municipality, but the sale of its plant to such a municipal- s " em ^"*' " e 
 ity, condemn the right of way across the lands of another )and8 not nec * s * 
 water company? 8ary . 
 
 ANSWER We do not contemplate any such condem- 
 nation proceedings. It is not necessary to cross lands of, 
 another water company. 
 
 Twelfth What evidence has the Bay Cities Water Com- 
 pany not in existence at the time Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald 
 condemned its scheme, to show that the quality of storm 
 waters is not bad, as alleged by him, and that such waters 
 only become potable by filtering or aerating? 
 
 ANSWER Desmond Fitzgerald made no such allega- 
 tions. He never suggested filtering and aeration for the Purit x of water 
 storm waters To the contrary he says: "It has always unc i uestloned - 
 been well established that in deep, well planned reservoirs, 
 comparatively free from organic matter, there is a decided 
 improvement in the quality of water, due to storage in an 
 open reservoir, the opposite being true of ground or filtered 
 water." 
 
 Mr. Fitzgerald made certain suggestions in respect of 
 the plans as then before him concerning the protection of 
 the waters from contamination. The recommendations 
 made by him have been included in the new plan which is 
 now before the people. These new plans have been passed 
 upon by the board of engineers recently appointed on behalf 
 of the city, who examined the physical features of the prop- 
 osition from the standpoint of these plans, and they stated 
 concerning the water as follows : 
 
 "This consideration (the geology) in connection with the 
 fact that the watershed is so sparsely populated, PLACES THE 
 WATER SUPPLY BEYOND CRITICISM \ and its crystal clearness 
 at the time of our visit bears practical evidence of its favor- 
 able surroundings." 
 
 Thirteenth Is it, or is it not, the fact that only four city's Engineers 
 days were occupied by the Board of Engineers recently ap- made more ex- 
 
 Sainted, upon the properties to be conveyed to the City of tended examina- 
 akland, in making actual examination of the physical feat- tion than did 
 ures of the properties and in going over the eighty or more Fitzgerald. 
 square miles of watershed claimed by the Bay Cities Water 
 Company ? 
 
 A W ER It is not a fact. The members of that Board 
 of ^- ee rs were three times as long in the field and many
 
 days longer in summing up their notes than was Desmond 
 Fitzgerald. 
 
 City absolutely Fourteenth Do you think the City of Oakland amply 
 
 protected by bonds protected by a bond of $1,000,000 when it is proposed to pay 
 and securities of- O y Our Company $3,750,000 for a plant from which it may 
 fered by Bay Cit- never b e arj i e ^ o obtain water, unless each of the foregoing 
 ics Water Co. questions can be satisfactorily answered? 
 
 ANSWER The City of Oakland will be made perfectly 
 safe against any loss whatever through putting in this muni- 
 cipal water system. Whatever sum, or whatever bond, or 
 whatever form of security may be considered necessary to 
 that end will be provided. Let your qualms as a taxpayer 
 quiet on that score. You will not be mulcted because of 
 any failure on our part to deliver what we sell, and to 
 insure it to the city free and clear of any difficulties which 
 your client, or its associate in interest, the Spring Valley 
 Water Company, or any one else can make for it. 
 
 Proposition that Fifteenth Would you, as a man of wealth, invest your 
 
 bonds be based on means in bonds secured alone by property which a company 
 water plant alone proposes to convey while another water company is already 
 illegal and absurd, in the field? 
 
 ANSWER This question has nothing to do with the 
 Bay Cities proposition, but if I were to follow in the footsteps 
 of your client, Mr. Dingee, who did this very thing when he 
 entered the field with the Oakland Water Company in com- 
 petition with the old Contra Costa Company, I would prob- 
 ably invest my means in such bonds. 
 
 Sixteenth Did the Bay Cities Water Company receive 
 from the Spring Va.ley Water Company a letter, dated Sep- 
 tember 24, 1903, with reference to the rights of the latter 
 company to the waters claimed by your Company, and, if so, 
 what response has been made thereto? 
 
 ANSWER Yes; on that date Spring Valley Water Com- 
 pany sent us a communication informing us that it claimed 
 the right to certain waters which are a small p< rti< n of < ur 
 present contemplated supply to Oak and. No reply was 
 made to this communication, as none was required, or, so 
 far as we know, expected. 
 
 $28,000,000 saved Seventeenth If, as stated by your C< mpany in a recent 
 
 to Oakland by ac- communication to the Council, a profit of s< me $28,000.000 
 quisition of Bay is to result to the City fnm the aoquisiti- n by the City .f 
 Cities Water Co.'s your plant, notwithstanding the r< mpetiti'-n of the ('< nt-a 
 plnt. Costa Water Company, why is it that you and your asso- 
 
 ciates, all moneyed men, do not complete the project and 
 realize that vast sum for yourselves? 
 
 ANSWER The said sum of $28,000,000 is the amount 
 which the people of Oakland will save during the peri' d of 
 forty years through owning a municipal plant, figured upon 
 the basis of the rates which your client is now charging, and
 
 upon a normal increase of population of the City during that 
 period. In other words, it your client succeeds in defeating 
 this movement of the people to rid themselves of its domina- 
 tion, and can hold the people in its power during the ensuing 
 forty years, it will have collected at the end of that time from 
 them "$22, ooo, ooo more than they would have been obliged 
 to pay for water if the forthcoming bond election had been 
 carried. At the end of those forty years, also, they will still 
 be paying your client the same rates as now, instead of only 
 twenty per cent of those rates; whereas, if the bond election 
 be carried and our works installed the municipal plant would 
 at the end of the forty-year period be fully paid for and the 
 rates of water would then be reduced 80% below the present 
 rates. Moreover, the people of Oakland would then have a 
 property belonging to the city worth vastly more than the 
 $6,000,000 originally paid for it, instead of having built up 
 for your client a property which it would probably regard 
 as worth upwards of $30,000,000, and into which it would 
 not meanwhile have put a dollar of outside money. It seems 
 to me, in view of these facts, that any taxpayer who, with a 
 clear understanding of the conditions, would go before his 
 neighbors and fellow-citizens, and advise them to defeat our 
 proposition, cannot justly complain if his zeal be attributed 
 to partisan advocacy rather than to public spirit. 
 
 Having thus, with such thoroughness as I can command Bay Cities did 
 answered each of the seventeen interrogatories which you "t seek to sell to 
 were pleased to propound, I now, in like quest of informa- Oakland; Oakland 
 tion, and in order that the public may be apprised of the true Sou 9 ht Ba / Cities, 
 facts of this controversy, beg to address to you certain ques- 
 tions, and urge response thereto. 
 
 These questions, by. singular coincidence, are seventeen 
 in number. I may preface them by saying that cur attitude 
 at the beginning of this contest was that of a seller of a water 
 plant to the City of Oakland. Two years had been spent 
 by us in negotiating with the officials of that city over the 
 sale of this plant, while they on their side had been acting 
 in response to the specific demands of the practically unan- 
 imous public sentiment which had elected them to office. 
 We were content to offer our plant upon its merits and with- 
 hold ourselves wholly from otherwise influencing the minds 
 of the people towards its acceptance. It was no purpose of 
 ours to enter for a moment the arena of controversy and by 
 any means or through any process seek to further the pur- 
 chasing of our property. At the beginning of this matter 
 it was the people who asked for our proposals; it was not we 
 who had sought them. Having made our proposition, we 
 were content to leave the result with them. 
 
 While the minds of the people were yet unclouded by 
 the organized endeavor which your client has since made to 
 influence them to its end, there was submitted to their con-
 
 sideration as a referendum, the proposition which our com- 
 pany had made, along with another. The result of that 
 canvass showed a poll of 5,065 votes out of a total of 7,135, 
 or more than the necessary two-thirds required by law to 
 accept our proposition, had such been a legal vote. Indeed, 
 as an evidence of how slightly the plant of your client is fav- 
 ored or desired by the people of Oakland, there were out of 
 the total but 57 persons who expressed themselves definitely 
 in favor of acquiring it, and but 367 who were opposed to 
 either of the plans submitted. The total of the two last may, 
 I believe, be taken to represent the aggregate of your Oak- 
 land stockholders, bondholders, employes, and those who 
 are dependent upon your establishment for favors. 
 
 Convinced, therefore, that the people of Oakland desired 
 our plant, we were still completely content to withhold our- 
 selves from any part in the question of the final vote upon 
 the issuance of the bonds for its purchase. But your client 
 has created a conflict, and through its attorney, yourself, I 
 am specifically, and by name, and in the most direct, com- 
 prehensive and public way, drawn into the fight. I am 
 reluctant to engage in a contest, but, being challenged, under 
 conditions which demand a defense, I do not shun the battle. 
 I shall not stand idly by and see our titles slandered, 
 the purity of our water denied, the engineering features of our 
 proposed construction denounced, the people falsely told 
 that the installation of our plant will increase their municipal 
 taxation, or with equal falsity advised that the trumped-up 
 litigation threatened by your client and its associate in this 
 matter, the Spring Valley Water Company, will prevent us 
 from constructing the plant if the bonds are voted, or will 
 interfere with delivery of water to Oakland at the completion 
 thereof and our entire project stigmatized as "costly," 
 "chimerical" and "rotten." I shall not sit idly by, I say, 
 and witness the perpetration by your client of these assaults 
 upon our company and the people of Oakland. But I shall 
 do what I consider the conditions require to counteract the 
 wrong impression which your client is now industriously 
 seeking to produce upon the public mind of Oakland. 
 
 Let me then commence by asking you the following 
 question : 
 
 Taxation not in- First Why does your client tell the people that the 
 
 creased. putting in of the Bay Cities plant would increase city tax- 
 
 ation? Do you and your client seriously mean to contend 
 that putting in the Bay Cities plant would increase taxation? 
 The putting in of the Bay Cities plant will reduce taxa- 
 tion, not increase it. By putting in the Bay Cities plant, the 
 city would save at once over $71,300.00 in municipal charges 
 which it now pays your client for city supply. This sum is 
 annually increasing with the growth of the city and the en- 
 largement of its needs for water. Within ten years it will
 
 have increased to $100,000.00 per annum; a sum equal to the 
 total operating expenses of the plant. Nor does the city now 
 get anything like the quantity of water necessary to sprinkle 
 its streets, or even keep its macadamized streets in repair, 
 which expensive pavements it is notorious are deteriorating 
 for lack of sufficient water in season to maintain them in 
 condition. As for parks, they are poorly watered, and one 
 or more of them, because of the cost of water, are not irrigated 
 at all. 
 
 With the municipal plant, the city would have all the 
 water it needs for parks, streets, schools, fire hydrants and 
 whatever else, which it is safe to say would be over twice the 
 amount it now consumes, and it would save the $71,300.00 
 which it now pays to your client. 
 
 Further than this: The city has, during the last four Litigation with 
 years and a half, from and including the year ending June Contra Costa in- 
 30, 1901, spent $50,227.85 in litigating with your client over creases taxation. 
 the subject of water rates. This litigation is perennial, and 
 will go on as long as your corporation remains in the field as 
 a vendor of water for domestic consumption. It is an inci- 
 dent of operation of the water system by your particular 
 private enterprise. If the people would cease from troubling 
 over water rates while your client is their sole source of ser- 
 vice, they must pay for that peace and they must pay a price 
 corel ative in magnitude to that which, in consideration of 
 peace, a conqueror demands of the population of a subjugated 
 territory : they must pay whatever rates your client may feel 
 it to its interests to impose. The people will not submit to 
 this, even if your client remains in the field, so the cost of 
 litigation against your company should properly be considered 
 a continuous annual source of outlay, and so figured in the 
 estimates. 
 
 The painful part about this feature oj litigation is that the Cit y P'^* Con ' 
 people pay all costs and attorney's fees of both your side and tra Cost ' s !' 
 their own. Your client's cost of litigation and lawyers in its ex P nse8 w " 
 tuits against the city during the like period of four and one- as ' s own * 
 half years has been the enormous figure of $158, 468. 99; over 
 three times tl-'e cost of the same litigation and attorney's fees on 
 part of the city. This large sum you have charged up in your 
 bill of expenses and it has been figured in the basis of rates 
 which your client has been enabled to declare against the 
 water consumers of the city. It is unnecessary to say that 
 under municipal ownership this sort of thing will cease. 
 
 If the municipal plant started in with all the people tak- 
 ing water from it, the water rates could be at once reduced 
 24 1-3 per cent, and the existing tax rates would in no manner 
 be affected. 
 
 In this connection I should remark that the people of 
 Oakland have not started into this matter of providing them- 
 selves with a municipal water plant through any kindly feel-
 
 8 
 
 futile e 
 bu ' ^ 
 tra Costa p^ant. 
 
 ings towards your client, or through any disposition to tem- 
 
 porize with it, or to share with it the business of furnishing 
 
 water to themselves. The specific purpose which they had 
 
 in view in arranging to put in a plant of their own, is to 
 
 get rid of your corporation and its plant. They wish to get 
 
 rid of it for many reasons : the rates are intolerably high, and 
 
 centra Costa a it has so adjusted its affairs that they cannot be lowered; it 
 
 menace t o effi- is in constant war with the people in the Courts over 
 
 iency of city rates, causing large sums of expense, both to themselves and 
 
 government. your corporation, both of which costs the people must pay 
 
 and it is a constant menace to the efficiency of the legislative 
 
 and administrative arms of the city government. Influences 
 
 of this sort tend to lower the standard of moral character 
 
 pervading the municipal government, to degrade politics, 
 
 and ofttimes unjustly to subject those elected to office to the 
 
 odium of popular suspicion. For these and other reasons 
 
 they have decided that the only relief possible is to get rid 
 
 of your client entirely. 
 
 ^ or a ^ on ? time they had hoped to purchase its plant, 
 an( ^ ky acquiring its property eliminate it from the field. 
 They worked assiduously with your client's management 
 for months and months, reaching into years, in the hope 
 that it would be induced to sell, and that some reasonable 
 valuation of the property could be agreed upon. In the per- 
 son of Desmond Fitzgerald they procured an engineer of 
 repute to appraise the value of those properties, who found 
 them to be worth $2,689,185.00. The people, through their 
 Mayor, were willing to allow you a profit of nearly a million 
 dollars and would have purchased your plant at $3,500,000.00; 
 but you chose to consider this figure preposterous and refused 
 to treat further upon the subject. 
 
 There is no escape for the people through dealing with 
 you; there is but one resource left, that is for them to put in 
 a plant of their own. When they concluded to do this they 
 did not expect their proceedings to that end to move on with- 
 out such opposition as your client and its coterie of interests 
 might be able to make. It was to be expected that 57 
 people, who, by their vote at the referendum, had shown 
 themselves interested in your properties and some of the 367 
 who had shown their indifference would write letters to news- 
 papers, issue circulars and have them distributed, and by 
 whatever means possible try to generate an apparent popular 
 sentiment against the purchase of the plant which the people 
 had selected. They well recognize also that your client would 
 create a literary bureau, and that through such instrument 
 it would disseminate sophistical arguments against the advan- 
 tage to the people of the proposed municipal plant, and against 
 the advisability of its installation. 
 
 Taxes decreased One of these sophistries is that the tax rate would be 
 
 by a municipal enormously raised through your client's competition with 
 plant. the municipal plant. I shall show that it would not. Let the
 
 water be furnished the people entirely free, and the tax rate 
 would be but $2.00, or 74 cents above the rate now paid, which 
 present rate is $1.26 on the $100 of valuation. 
 
 With all the people taking water from the city plant 
 and the tax rate remaining as it now is, undisturbed, there 
 would at once be a reduction in water rates of 24 1-3 per cent. 
 This fact becomes apparent upon reference to the following 
 statement : 
 
 Collections of Contra Costa Water 
 Co. from private consumers in 
 Oakland, and from City of Oak- 
 land for 1904 $576,626 37 
 
 Sum paid to C. C. W. Co. by City for 
 
 public supply $ 71,300 oo 71,300 oo 
 
 Amount collected from private con- 
 sumers in Oakland by C. C.W. Co. 
 in 1904 $505,326 37 
 
 First year's costs on Municipal Plant 
 
 Interest on $5,557,500,00 Bonds at 
 
 4% $222,300 oo 
 
 (When the plant starts into opera- 
 tion there will have been redeemed 
 $142,500 oo of the bonds ) 
 
 Sinking Fund for Bond Redemp- 
 tion 142,500 oo 
 
 Operation of Plant *i 00,000 oo 
 
 TOTAL $464,800 oo 
 
 Sum paid to C. C. W. Co. by City of 
 Oakland for public supply, which 
 amount may be transferred from 
 Tax Fund to Water Fund without 
 changing present tax rate $ 71,300 oo 
 
 Average sum annually paid by the 
 City during the last 4 K years as 
 expenses of water rate litigation 
 with C. C.W. Co., and which sum 
 may be transferred from Tax 
 Fund to Water Fund without 
 
 changing present tax rate 11,16111 
 
 $ 82,461 ii 
 
 The difference representing the sum 
 which must be raised from water 
 rates to private consumers $382,33889 
 
 Amount collected from private con- 
 sumers in Oakland by C. C. W. 
 Co., in 1904 (See above) 505,326 37 
 
 Reduction of amount to be paid by 
 private consumers $122,987 48
 
 This reduction of $122,987.48 is equivalent to 24 1-3 per 
 cent of $505,326 37, or the rate to private consumers during 
 ike first year's operation of the municipal plant would be 24 1-3 
 PER CENT less than that collected by the Contra Costa Water 
 Company during the year 1904, WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH 
 
 EXISTING TAX RATES IN ANY MANNER WHATEVER. 
 
 In addition the city will have acquired a tangible clear 
 asset amounting to $142,500.00, which is the annual instal- 
 ment of the sinking fund for bond redemption. Taking 
 this into consideration THE REAL NET GAIN TO THE PEOPLE 
 OF OAKLAND is $122,987.48, plus $142,500.00, or $265,487.48, 
 which is 46% of the amount collected by the Contra Costa Water 
 Company from private consumers and the City of Oakland in 
 1904. 
 
 *This figure represents the actual cost of operations 
 (allowing the liberal sum of $25,000 for administrative ex- 
 penses) which the plant would incur, with no allowance made 
 for repairs or extensions. As the plant would be new, there 
 would be no repairs or extensions to speak of, during the 
 first three years after operations began. Following this 
 there would be some expense through both causes. This, 
 however, would not increase the water rates, nor prevent 
 them from continuing to fall, as there would be a saving each 
 year in interest paid upon the successive redemptions of the 
 bonded indebtedness, which would much more than offset 
 the cost of extensions and repairs to the system. 
 
 Municipal plant ' But your client declares that it will be a competitor in 
 
 will drive Contra the field against the municipal plant and that such plant 
 
 Costa from the shall not get all the water consumers. On the contrary it is 
 
 fi'd. demonstrable that not one taxpayer will take water from your 
 
 plant, unless such taxpayer be some person who has some 
 
 special interest in the company, is willing to donate a large 
 
 part of his money to it, and whose interests are not in common 
 
 with his fellow water consumers; even this person would not 
 
 patronize it long, for your client's Oakland plant must very 
 
 shortly thereafter go out of existence. 
 
 And the reason is very simple: The city plant will start 
 in furnishing water at cost. That cost will be 24>i% 
 below the water rates of 1904. Your client will never offer 
 water to the people at a less rate than the people will offer 
 it to themselves through their city plant. Whatever fall you 
 make in rates, the rates of the city plant will fall to meet it. 
 If you force the people to furnish water to themselves at less 
 than cost they will do so, making up the difference out of 
 general taxation. 
 
 Taxes reduced. The appended tables, based upon water being furnished 
 
 by the city plant at present rates, brings out the fact here- 
 tofore stated, that as soon as a deficit in the municipal water 
 plant fund shall appear, and said plant begin to pinch upon 
 taxation, the taxpaying water consumers, who may be taking 
 from your plant would, in defense of their own pockets, leave 
 you at once and rush to the municipal plant. The truth is 
 that they will not wait for that point to be reached. They 
 will leave your plant at present rates and go to the municipal 
 plant, in order to get a reduction of taxation. This reduction 
 also appears by the table as follows :
 
 Table I. ON BASIS OF CONTRA COSTA WATER RATES FOR 1904 
 
 al 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 IP 
 
 )f water consu 
 by Municipal P 
 
 isumers. 
 
 o 8 
 
 I-B^ 
 
 < ^ 
 
 w Pk f6 
 
 11 j 
 
 .a M 
 
 
 
 ||| 
 
 i^ '~ 
 
 * K 
 
 RATES 
 
 s *t 
 
 ill 
 
 a o g 
 
 fp 
 
 centage < 
 'urnished 
 ivate Cot 
 
 c 
 a 
 
 g 5-B 
 S S g 
 3^ 
 
 Q S 2 
 R JB 
 S 
 
 fi 
 
 III* 
 
 |sll 
 
 
 S = 
 
 PRIVATE + CITY = TOTAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 o 
 
 
 P4 
 
 
 
 
 IOO 
 
 ^505,326. 37 
 
 $122,9^7.47 
 
 None 
 
 017 
 
 243 reduction 
 
 
 -|- 71,300 oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $576,626.37 
 
 
 
 
 
 90 
 
 454,793-73 
 
 72,454.83 
 
 None 
 
 259 
 
 142 reduction 
 
 
 | 71,300 oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $526,093.73 
 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 404,261.09 
 
 21,922.19 
 
 None 
 
 .218 
 
 042 reduction 
 
 
 -J- 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $475,561.09 
 
 
 
 
 
 75^3 
 
 382.338.90 . 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 .26 
 
 None 
 
 
 H 7 I '3o-o 
 
 
 
 Rate) 
 
 
 
 $453,638-9 
 
 
 
 
 
 70 
 
 353,728.46 
 
 None 
 
 $28,610.44 
 
 315 
 
 055 increase 
 
 
 -j- 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $425,028.46 
 
 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 303,195.82 
 
 None 
 
 79,143.08 
 
 413 
 
 153 increase 
 
 
 -|- 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 $374,495-82 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 252,663.19 
 
 None 
 
 129,675.71 
 
 I.4II 
 
 251 increase 
 
 
 -|-7i,3oo.oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 $323,963-19 
 
 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 202,130.55 
 
 None 
 
 180,208.35 
 
 I.S08 
 
 .348 increase 
 
 
 -J- 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $273,430-55 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 i5 I ,597-9 I 
 
 None 
 
 230,740.99 
 
 I. 606 
 
 .446 increase 
 
 
 -|-7i,3oo.oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $222,897.91 
 
 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 101,065.28 
 
 None 
 
 281,273.62 
 
 1.704 
 
 .544 increase 
 
 
 -|- 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $172,365.28 
 
 
 
 
 
 IO 
 
 50,532.64 
 
 None 
 
 331,806.2 
 
 I. 80 
 
 .642 increase 
 
 
 -i- 71,300.00 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 $121,832.64 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 None 
 
 382,338-9 
 
 2.00 
 
 . 74 increase 
 
 Free 
 Wat 
 
 t -1-71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 ate Coo 
 umers 
 
 $7i,30o.oc 
 
 > 
 
 

 
 IS 
 
 Should the proportion of city plant customers fall below 
 f the total number of water consumers, then a defi- 
 cit would begin to appear in the water fund which would have 
 to be met through the tax rates. This deficit would bear 
 equally upon the consumers of both plants, and would mark 
 the point where the patron of the Contra Costa plant would 
 have to pay not only as much money for his water as would 
 be paid by the patrons of the city plant, but added to this a 
 penalty collected through his tax rates because of his refusal 
 to take water from the city plant. 
 
 In other words, when the city plant is in, there will be a 
 given quantity of water for each and every consumer in the 
 city, for which given quantity he must pay, either through 
 paying water rates, or tax rates. If he allows his share of 
 the water to run into the sea and chooses to take that of the 
 Contra Costa Company and pay for it, he must also pay for 
 his share of the water which he has thus permitted to run 
 to waste. Under such conditions he wastes in two directions : 
 he lets his municipal water go to waste, and he wastes his 
 money by paying it to the Contra Costa for water while his 
 own water is going to waste. 
 
 The question is: Will any one do this? My answer is 
 that not one water consumer in Oakland will do it. To the 
 contrary, he will take water from the city plant not only to 
 keep from increasing his taxation, but he will do so to get 
 the benefit of a reduction in taxation, if the existing Contra 
 Costa rates be those upon which the city plant begins to 
 furnish water. 
 
 But I have said that my opinion is that in practice, when 
 the Council determines upon the rates the city will charge 
 for water, it will let the tax rates remain as they are, making 
 no reduction in them, but begin to furnish water at a 24^ 
 per cent reduction from the present rates, which rates so 
 reached, would, with all the consumers supplied from the 
 city plant, yield exactly the cost of the water. The table 
 based upon rates yielding the actual cost of the municipal 
 water to all the people is as follows:
 
 Table II. ON BASIS OF 24^% CUT IN PRESENT 
 
 WATER RATES TO PRIVATE CONSUMERS 
 
 STARTING WITH PRESENT TAX RATES. 
 
 I! 
 
 o 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 : of water consu 
 by municipal ] 
 isumers. 
 
 P 
 
 s t 
 
 felg 
 
 ill 
 111 
 
 w 
 rt 
 
 NCREASE 
 
 present tax ] 
 cover deficit 
 
 fl! 
 
 
 * 
 
 H 
 
 " S $ 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 PRIVATE + CITY = TOTAL 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 TOO 
 
 $382,338 90 
 
 None 
 
 1.26 
 
 None 
 
 
 -|- 71,300.00 
 
 
 i Pres. 
 Kate) 
 
 
 
 $453,638 9 
 
 
 
 
 90 
 
 344,105 01 
 
 $38,23389 
 
 1-334 
 
 .074 
 
 
 -|- 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 .$415,405 01 
 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 305,871 12 
 
 76.467 78 
 
 1 .408 
 
 .148 
 
 
 | 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 $377,171 I 2 
 
 
 
 
 70 
 
 267,637 2 3 
 
 114,701 67 
 
 1.482 
 
 . 222 
 
 1 -1-71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 $338,937 2 3 
 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 229,403 34 
 
 152,935 56 1.556 
 
 .2 9 6 
 
 
 -|- 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 $300,703 34 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 191,169 45 
 
 191,169.45 
 
 1.63 
 
 37 
 
 
 -[-71,300 oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 $262,469 45 
 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 I 5 2 ,935 56 
 
 229,403 34 
 
 1.704 
 
 444 
 
 
 -|-7i,30o.oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 $224,235.56 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 114,701 67 
 
 267,637 23 
 
 1.778 
 
 S 1 ^ 
 
 
 -!- 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 $186,001 67 
 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 76.467.78 
 
 305,871 12 
 
 1.852 
 
 592 
 
 
 | 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 $147,767.78 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 38,233 89 
 
 344,105 oi 
 
 1 .926 
 
 .666 
 
 
 -!- 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 $109,533 89 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 382,33889 
 
 2 .00 
 
 74 
 
 
 -]- 71,300.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 $71,300.00) 
 

 
 14 
 
 The percentages in this column from 100% down are 
 purely theoretical, and could never occur in practice; for the 
 reason that, as stated above, immediately a deficit began to 
 appear in the water fund, the taxpayers, through whom all 
 water is consumed, would, in order to hold down taxation, 
 immediately leave the Contra Costa and go over to the city 
 plant. The percentages, however, with the calculations 
 based upon them, are appended as a matter of theory and 
 curiosity. 
 
 Contra Costa It is useless to further pursue the inquiry through such 
 
 could not exist in tables as above to ascertain what might be the condition 
 competition with w ith your client cutting 40% and getting this or that per- 
 municipal plant, centageof the consumers, or its cutting 50% or 60%, or what- 
 ever other per cent, and getting one or another percentage 
 of the consumers; suffice it to say, that your company could 
 not make them and exist. A condition even of free water 
 would not be without precedent in California. The City of 
 Monrovia in Southern California had it for years and found 
 it of immense advantage. The water rate payers are all tax 
 payers. This statement holds good even in the case of tenants 
 who, in fact, pay water rent for their landlords. They would 
 Tenant benefit- not patronize your client, for the money they thus paid would 
 ed by municipal have to be paid over again by their landlords to the city 
 plant- in taxation, and would, of course, be charged back again to 
 
 the tenants, in increased rent. The tenant is interested in 
 reducing his rent, through lessening taxation, rather than 
 raising his rent through increasing taxation. 
 
 From this explanation it must be clear to you, and if not 
 to you, it will be clear to the people of Oakland, that with 
 the city plant in existence you would be absolutely powerless 
 as a competitor against the city plant. Your functions as 
 a water carrier for Oakland would thereupon cease you must 
 then forthwith close your doors to business in Oakland. 
 
 We have thus shown that the municipal plant in opera- 
 tion would not raise tax rates one dollar unless it reduced 
 water rates one dollar, and this reduction being below the 
 standard of 24 1-3 less than your present rates. That stand- 
 ard of reduction below your present rates would be increased 
 every year. As each installment of the bonded debt is paid 
 off, amounting to $142,500 per year, there is thus much less 
 interest-bearing debt outstanding. Four per cent on $142,- 
 500 is $5,700 oo ; so the year following the putting in of the 
 city plant we would pay $5,700.00 less interest on the bonds, 
 which credit would redound to the benefit of the consumers 
 by allowing them a further reduction of about i % from your 
 existing water rates. The second year, therefore, the 24 1-3 % 
 reduction would be increased to 25 1-3%; the third year it 
 would be 26 1-3%; the fourth year it would be 27 1-3%; 
 the fifth year it would be 28 1-3%; the tenth year it would 
 be 33 1-3%. And so on it would go, the water rates getting 
 

 
 less and less each year, until the plant was entirely paid for, 
 when a large additional reduction would occur through not 
 having further to provide the bond installment. This would 
 leave the expenses of the municipal plant the cost of oper- 
 ating it solely, which would be about 80% less than your 
 present water rates. 
 
 The above percentages are based on the present popula- 
 tion of Oakland and if allowance is made for the prospective 
 increase the showing will be very much more favorable to 
 the City of Oakland. 
 
 TWJ Why do your client's writers persistently state Not true that 
 to the public that the people of Oakland shall have'paidin people must pay 
 "taxes for bond interest alone $690,000" and "also $420,656 |111<W8fl before 
 sinking fund, or a total of $1,110,650 before they get any the y 9 et water - 
 water?" Do not you, your client and its writers know that 
 such statements are incorrect? 
 
 To prove their error let us take a hypothetical case. In 
 this connection I may say that all of our computations with 
 regard to this matter must necessarily be based upon hypoth- 
 eses, and the case which I select is chosen arbitrarily for the 
 purpose of illustrating merely the proper method of computa- 
 tion. Let us then assume that it takes three years to con- 
 struct the municipal plant and that construction begins on 
 June i , 1905, let us further assume that the cost of construction 
 will be paid for as the work progresses, and that instead of 
 many payments being made at intervals throughout the 
 period of construction, there will be three issuances of in- 
 stallments of the bonds, each issuance at the end of a year 
 and each one-third of the total bond issue: Each payment 
 would, therefore, be through the issuance of $1,900,000 of 
 bonds. Of the bonds issued June i, 1906, there would on 
 June i, 1907, fall due $76,000 interest and $47,500 would 
 have to be provided for redemption of one-fortieth of the quan- 
 tity of bonds outstanding, making a total sum to be provided 
 for from taxation of $123,500. At the same time there is 
 issued another $1,900,000 of the bonds. On June first of 
 the next year 1908 there would be payable interest on 
 $1,852,500, plus $1,900,000 "= $3,752,500, or $150,100; 
 also one-fortieth of the sum of the bonds issued, or $95,000, 
 making a total for that year to be raised from taxation of 
 $245,100. At the same time there would be issued the re- 
 maining $1,900,000 of bonds, and the plant be completed 
 and the water turned in. 
 
 To recapitulate the above we have: 
 
 June i , 1905 Work started 
 
 June i, 1906, Bonds issued for $1,900,000 
 
 June i, 1907, Bonds issued for 1,900,000
 
 i6 
 
 And payments as follows : 
 
 Interest on $1,900 ,000 at 4% $ 76,000 
 
 1-40 for Redemption Fund 47,500 
 
 Total $ 123,500 
 
 June i, 1908, Bonds issued for $1,900,000 
 
 Interest on 3,752,500 150,100 
 
 1-40 Redemption Fund 95,000 
 
 Total $ 245.100 
 
 Grand Total $ 368,600 
 
 $123,500 would raise the tax rate for the year .239. 
 
 $245,100 would raise the tax rate .475. 
 
 So that instead of there being $1,110,650 to be paid out 
 of taxation on account of the water plant during the three 
 years before water becomes distributable, as your client 
 through its writers erroneously states, there would be but 
 $368,600, an amount which, being apportioned between the 
 two years, would occasion but a comparatively small raise 
 in taxation. The year following, the water plant being in 
 operation, the plant would take care of its own expenses, 
 would not have to call upon the tax lists any further, and 
 the people would start off with water at 24^5% reduction, 
 which would, in three years following, more than return 
 them in saving upon their water bills the moneys which they 
 had advanced through their taxes to bring the municipal 
 plant into existence. 
 
 Three Why does your client, through its writers, and 
 others, assert that such litigation as your corporation and 
 its associate the Spring Valley Water Company, might bring 
 against the Bay Cities Water Company, would tie up the 
 building of the plant and prevent the delivery of our waters 
 to Oakland until the conclusion of the litigation which, 
 they say, would drag along for years when both you, your 
 client, its writers and the Spring Valley Water Company 
 must know that such statements are absurd? 
 
 Litigation will Neither your corporation, the Spring Valley, nor any 
 
 not prevent o r de- one e ] se cou \ft & o any suc h thing. If suits were brought 
 
 lay delivery of a g a j nst US) as j s threatened, and we are at a loss to know or 
 
 wa er< imagine upon what tenable ground either or any of you 
 
 hope to get into court if any such litigation occurs, it would 
 
 not stop construction an hour, nor hold back water a day, 
 
 and we have not the slightest fear of the outcome. For 
 
 ourselves, however, we do not believe that such suits will 
 
 be brought, at least, with any idea of ultimate success on 
 
 your part. 
 
 Fourth Do you or your client really believe that the 
 people of Oakland do not see through your client's scheme 
 which its writers constantly propose of making the munici- 
 pal bonds rest upon the water plant alone?
 
 17 
 
 Do you not know that the people realize that such is 
 merely a ruse on your part to deteat the bond issue? That 
 there is no law making such a thing possible why do your 
 writers ask the question? 
 
 Fifth Your client's writers are constantly making the 
 people who sign their "interviews" say that our proposition 
 is "too vague:" What dees your client mean by that? or 
 is the phrase itself intended to be "vague" and convey no 
 meaning, but merely an expression derogatory to our project? 
 
 For our part we think our project is exceedingly defined Bay Cities prop- 
 and direct. We own the land, we own the waters. We know osition a direct 
 what we own and what can be done with it. The first half one - 
 of this statement comprehends results of a mass of work of 
 many lawyers; the latter half the charts and figures of many 
 engineers. As a result of the work and opinion of these 
 engineers and lawyers the Bay Cities Water Company has 
 invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in the prop- 
 erties which it has offered to sell the City of Oakland. To 
 our minds language does not admit of more direct, explicit 
 and comprehensive statements than we have made, or that 
 is embodied in our proposition, and if you can really find 
 anything vague in what we offer, we should be glad to clear 
 your mind upon it. 
 
 Sixth Why does your client, through its writers, state Bay Cities Wa- 
 that the cost of the Bay Cities plant will be largely in terCompany guar- 
 excess of the amount covered by the proposed bond issue? antee complete 
 
 If you mean that the expense of constructing the plant P |arvt f r proposed 
 will be largely in excess of the amount of the bonds, we say amount - 
 that we will construct the plant for that amount, and give 
 bonds in satisfactory amount to substantiate our undertaking. 
 
 Seventh Why does your client have its writers prepare, 
 and cause to be printed in the San Francisco and Oakland 
 newspapers, such misleading articles as have recently appeared 
 attacking the Bay Cities proposition? Let me cite a few of 
 the misstatements with which they abound: 
 
 It is stated that "The Oakland Council, by asking the .... 
 
 1 . 11/-A misstatements of 
 
 people to vote upon themselves a debt of $5,700,000 to buy contra Costa's 
 a water plant (Bay Cities) is asking them to pay a tax during a d voca t es . 
 the period of construction, without any return at all, of 
 $1,110,650." This statement is false, utterly and absolutely, 
 as shown above. 
 
 It is stated that "The law requires the bonds to be sold 
 in a lump:" This statement is false ; they could not beso sold 
 under the law. 
 
 It is stated that "Trying to get a municipal plant while 
 leaving a competitor in the field everywhere results in loss 
 and waste." This statement is false in toto. It nowhere 
 results or ever has resulted in loss and waste, excepting to 
 the private plant. Vallejo and Santa Rosa are instances in 
 point in this state.
 
 i8 
 
 It is stated that "in Europe the law requires that all 
 private plants shall be bought before entering upon municipal 
 ownerships." There is no such law anywhere in Europe, so 
 far as I know, and I challenge your writer to produce such 
 law. It is true, however, that no European government 
 would bother with putting in a municipal plant, while a pri- 
 vate plant existed in the field. If your plant were in a Euro- 
 pean community, the method of the government in dealing 
 with you would be very different from what it is in Oakland. 
 Having concluded to put in its own waterworks, the govern- 
 ment would send its Desmond Fitzgerald to appraise the 
 value of your plant. Finding it to be worth $2,689,185, 
 that sum would be deposited, payable to you on demand by 
 the Royal or Imperial Treasurer. The government would 
 then proceed to take over your plant. Let your client, if it 
 dare, acquire a literary bureau, paid interviewers, political 
 corps, subsidized newspapers and all the rest of its equipment 
 and paraphernalia for affecting public opinion to its ends and 
 try such a thing on a European community. Why, no sooner 
 would its first publication go forth, redundant with its fabri- 
 cations and false colorings, than your establishment would 
 be surrounded by a detachment of "gens d'armes" and the 
 whole outfit of you, president, lawyers, writers, publishers 
 and politicians would be lined up and marched off to the 
 calaboose. You had better instruct your writers to "let up" 
 on their European comparisons in their future articles. 
 
 Eight As a taxpayer, distressed through the fear of 
 having to pay a few farthings of increased taxation for the 
 two years while the city plant is being built, then get it all 
 back through reduced water rates during the succeeding 
 two years, with further reduction in rates from that on as 
 such a taxpayer, what do you think of the proposition of 
 paying your client its price of $8,000,000 for its 10,000,000 
 gallon plant, then immediately thereafter forced to buy addi- 
 tional water from elsewhere (for the Contra Costa is now 
 furnishing its full limit of supply) and to pay therefor the 
 price which the Bay Cities asks, $3,750,000 (for it could not 
 be had for less) ; making in all a total cost of at least $i 1,750,- 
 ooo. Let me ask you what do you think of that for a bond 
 issue, and how does that strike you as a taxpayer, and as 
 such how would it affect your tax schedule? 
 
 City cannot Ninth Your client through its writers is repeatedly 
 
 make contract telling the people that they do not know what they are going 
 until people vote to vote bonds upon, because they are not permitted to see 
 bonds, the contract which it is proposed sha 1 ! be entered into be- 
 
 tween the city and the Bay Cities Water Company. Why 
 does your client do that, when it knows it is not possible to 
 enter into any contract until the people have, by their votes, 
 authorized the Mayor and City Council to make one? 
 
 Your client is seeking to confuse the public mind by
 
 substituting contract for proposition. The people are in- 
 formed upon what they are voting by reference to our prop- 
 osition to them, now on file with the City Council. That 
 proposition is elaborately presented, being recited with great 
 explicitness, the entire aggregate of the properties to be sold 
 fully shown, many of the features being illustrated with 
 charts and tables. It has all been printed in the public 
 press of Oakland, and to present it herewith would require Ba x Cities prop- 
 extended space. Briefly, however, it is to sell to the city in osition perfectly 
 fee simple about 8,000 acres of land, together with water c|ear - 
 rights to a minimum of 20,000,000 gallons of water per day 
 in the driest year. In ordinary years there would be up- 
 wards of 25,000,000 gallons per day yielded by the properties. 
 To erect dams and create reservoirs for impounding this city to own 
 water, all of which shall belong to the city, to build 51 miles p | ant a nd water 
 of wood stave pipe line and bring that water to the charter supply, 
 line of Oakland, where it may be distributed to the people 
 through the new distributing service which the city will build, 
 unless, as is suggested by Mr. Mott, the distributing system 
 of your client can be bought at a reasonable figure, which 
 would make the spending of the entire amount needful to 
 build a new distributing system unnecessary. 
 
 In respect to the matter of the contract, let me here state 
 that the Bay Cities Company is ready at any and all times 
 within the period fixed by our communication to the Council 
 to enter into a contract satisfactory to the city, whenever 
 the city on its part is ready to contract with us. The getting 
 up of the contract is a matter of work for engineers and law- . 
 
 yers, and the people's representatives, the Mayor, City Coun- 
 cil, City Attorney and City Engineer, can be trusted to take 
 care of the city's interest in that behalf. 
 
 Tenth Why does your client through its writers re- 
 peatedly complain about the wood stave pipe line in which it is 
 proposed to bring the waters of the municipal plant to Oak- 
 land, when your client knows, and its writers should know, 
 that engineers agree, and engineering works recognize, that 
 for carrying water under pressure an iron hooped wood stave 
 pipe is the best pipe for the purpose that exists? 
 
 I will mention the following as specimens of the mis- 
 statements which your client is using to prejudice the public 
 -mind upon this feature of the proposed construction. I 
 will cite only two, though I could enumerate many more. 
 
 First that "Desmond Fitzgerald's report condemns 
 the conveyance of water through a wood pipe as insufferable." 
 The statement is false. Desmond Fitzgerald did not con- 
 demn conveying the water through the wood pipe at all. He 
 objected to the use of wood stave construction in the force 
 main leading from the pumps. Such force main is not now 
 included in the plans before the Council. The only objector 
 to the wood pipe is a certain one of your writers, whose 
 name I sha 1 ! not mention in these pages.
 
 Second "The friction of water rushing through a wooden 
 pipe under such a pressure as it will bear wears away the 
 wood. The wood fibre planed off by the friction will reach 
 us in our drinking water, and while we are drinking up the 
 wood of which the pipe is made, it will get thinner and begin 
 to break." 
 
 The statement is false and absurd. It is a peculiaritv 
 of wood pipes carrying water under pressure, that their inside 
 remains smooth, and does not form tubercles, as do iron or 
 steel pipes. After the water is turned in the pipe goes through 
 a sort of sweating or saturating process, and thereupon imme- 
 Woo stave pipe ^iately begins to form a skin coating upon its inside. The 
 e very b s con- j^^^g wa t er moves upon this skin, and does not touch the 
 wood at all. The skin becomes slightly thicker and tougher 
 as years go by, but the wood within does not change. How 
 long a wood pipe will last is not known, but London had 400 
 miles of it in use for 218 years, and during recent reconstruc- 
 tion it was found to be quite sound. Although the wood 
 practically does not deteriorate, the bands do, and after the 
 laose of many years must be replaced. 
 
 Eleventh Your client is supplying the cities of Berkeley 
 
 and Alameda from the same sources from which it now takes 
 
 water for Oakland. Two fires of recent occurrence in Ber- 
 
 Contra Costa fceiey^ O ne the Town Hall, the other a large furniture fac- 
 
 supply insufficient torV) s h ow ed a failure of water in your client's supply pipes, 
 
 o guarantee fire &Q - th t th prO perties were destroyed. The factory is now 
 
 protection. . i- fr j t i * *.i __!*_ 
 
 suing your client for damages for loss of the property because 
 
 of its failure to furnish water to extinguish the fire. This 
 shows your water resources are exhausted. With all the 
 purchasable water lands about the bay corraled by your con- 
 frere, the Spring Valley Water Company, to keep out com- 
 petition from its business of supplying San Francisco, where 
 would you find additional water lands? And if found, how 
 much would you increase the cost of water to the people of 
 Oakland by reason of your expense incurred in acquiring 
 such new sources, and extracting water therefrom? 
 
 Twelfth As a citizen and taxpayer having investigated 
 the question of water supply for municipalities, we assume, 
 in your unbiased and unprejudiced research, that you know 
 how many cities in the United States having the same popu- 
 lation of Oakland, or larger, own their own water works, and, 
 if so, will you kindly give this information to the people of 
 Oakland? Also state what cities the size of Oakland, or 
 larger, in the United States, do not own their own water 
 works. 
 
 Thirteenth Is it not a fact that the Contra Costa Water 
 Company furnishes water to Berkeley and Alameda at a much 
 less rate than they charge the citizens of Oakland; and is it 
 not a fact that they charge the municipality of Berkeley and 
 Alameda for the water used by the municipalities a much less
 
 ai 
 
 rate than they charge the City of Oakland for water for the 
 same purposes? If your answer is in the affirmative, will 
 you kindly explain to the people of Oakland why this should 
 be? 
 
 Fourteenth If your client^defeats the bond proposition 
 now pending, and is thereafter called upon by the city to 
 state a price at which it would sell its plant, would it not 
 name a much more prohibitive figure than even its present 
 price? And if condemnation proceedings were taken by the 
 city against that plant, you having your $7,000.000 valuation 
 as res adjudicate, would you not expect to be as successful 
 in getting your demands as you have heretofore been? 
 
 Fifteenth Is it not a fact that the expenditures in Oak- Mechanic, La- 
 land of some millions of the $5,700,000 raised from sale of borer Merchant 
 bonds would GREATLY BENEFIT LOCAL LABOR CONDITIONS, * nd Banke ^ bene- 
 
 GIVING EMPLOYMENT TO POSSIBLY A THOUSAND RESIDENTS Rt * d financial| y b X 
 
 OF OAKLAND, AFFORDING A MARKET FOR MUCH OAKLAND *., JUJ[ t B * y Clt " 
 
 MATERIAL, and the money finally finding its way into the '** p * n ' 
 
 mercantile community, produce activities all along the line? 
 
 And this money being new funds coming into the city from 
 
 outside, would that not be better for the people of the city 
 
 than the presence of your company, which takes large sums 
 
 of money from them monthly and sends it away ? 
 
 Sixteenth Do you not appreciate the fact that the in- 
 stallation by the city of a new modern plant, with an ample 
 supply of pure water for fifty years abundance of water 
 for a.l purposes, streets, parks, fires and e.se, delivering 
 water at one-quarter the rates now paid, with the rates yearly 
 decreasing, with the consciousness of your plant being out 
 of the fie.d, and out of politics, that this would have a decid- 
 edly elevating effect upon the values of property in Oakland, 
 that the career of the city as a factor}.' center wou,d go rapidly 
 on, with the number of such establishments quickly increas- 
 ing, and that a.l activities would bejmmense'y stimulated? 
 
 Seventeenth On my desk beside me lies a printed cir- Mr. Chickering'* 
 cular written by you, entitled "BAY CITIES SCHEME real position on 
 COSTLY AND CHIMERICAL," a copy of which circu ar the water q u - 
 was mai'ed to each of the voters of Oakland. In this circu ar tlon< 
 ym pretend' to address the people of Oak- and as a citizen 
 and a taxpayer, revea ing therein no relation to the Company, 
 which is iv .w admittedly your client, and you assert that you 
 had not established this re.ation of attorney and client at 
 the time you started in to write the circular. You are un- 
 doubtedly sincere in making this statement, but a.l your 
 friends be ieve that you became sadiy mixed as to dates, 
 and have entirely forgotten the date of your employment. 
 Won't you please ask some of your friends about it and tell 
 the people of Oakland the result of your inquiries? 
 
 In that circular you find extensive faults with the Bay 
 Cities project. You roundly denounce it as an absurd prop-
 
 osition, without foundation, impracticable, and much else, 
 and, as a taxpayer, a water consumer, a resident of Oakland 
 and a citizen "moved by civic pride," protest against such 
 a scheme being "saddled on to the municipality of Oakland." 
 , -i Further over on my desk lies a mass of documents, many 
 of them written by yourself, showing that in the year 1897 
 you were associated with E. G. Wheeler, at present largely 
 interested in and Secretary of the Bay Cities Water Com- 
 pany, and that you were aware at that time that Mr. Wheeler 
 was moving in the enterprises, and acquiring the properties 
 out of which the Bay Cities Water Company grew. That 
 you operated with him in the capacity of confidential agent, 
 FRIEND and attorney. That when it came to organizing the 
 Bay Cities Water Company in 1902, which was instituted 
 for the purpose, among others, of furnishing Oakland with 
 water, you advised E. G. Wheeler with regard to various 
 matters connected therewith, and among other functions 
 you performed was that of becoming trustee for a number of 
 the stockholders of the Bay Cities Water Company, which 
 trusteeship you continue ^to hold. That in the fall of 1903 
 your relations with him on this water matter had lasted sev- 
 eral years, and that he paid you such fee as you demanded 
 for such of your services as were performed in your capacity 
 of attorney as evidenced by a receipted bill dated December 
 ist, 1903, to which your firm's name is attached, signed in 
 your own handwriting. After, therefore, having continued 
 with this water matter for years, (BEING NOW A TRUS- 
 TEE FOR SOME OF OUR STOCKHOLDERS LIVING 
 BEYOND THE STATE) the very purpose of it being to 
 supply with water these cities of the bay, among which was 
 Oakland, you now come out as a citizen and a taxpayer 
 "moved by civic pride" , TO SAY NOTHING OF BEING THE PAID 
 
 ATTORNEY OF THE CONTRA COSTA WATER COMPANY, and assail 
 
 the work which you aided in bringing about. A while ago, 
 you would, as a "citizen and taxpayer" have strenuously 
 advised the people to acquire water from the Bay Cities 
 properties. Now, your feelings have been revolutionized 
 through a change in your interests, you go forth in your aspect 
 as a taxpayer and characterize as "chimerical" properties 
 with which you were formerly related. What kind of law- 
 yerism or taxpayerism is this? Will you give me your idea 
 of the moral estimate of such actions ? 
 
 Will you state to the Oakland public how many shares 
 of stock of the Bay Cities Water Company you now hold as 
 trustee for out of the State owners, whose interests you are 
 attempting to harm by your attacks upon the properties 
 represented by their shares? 
 
 Your answer to the above queries may have little or 
 nothing to do with the merit of the Bay Cities proposition, 
 but as a psychological study I think it would be simply great.
 
 In concluding my remarks I have a parting word to 
 address 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF OAKLAND. 
 
 You have for years been struggling to procure for your- 
 self a municipal water system. You have for years felt the 
 need of this important facility to your upward movement 
 as a municipality in the scale of cities of the United States. 
 With more than forty out of fifty of the largest cities 
 of the United States owning their water systems, municipal 
 water works is not an experiment. Experience has shown 
 that cheap, pure water is a basic essential to the growth of a 
 city. I have no hesitancy in saying that if Berkeley, for 
 instance, should secure a municipal service and furnish water 
 a third cheaper than Oakland is doing, many of the productive 
 enterprises which would otherwise come to Oakland, would 
 center there. With Oakland having abundance of water at 
 a quarter less rate than now, the rate decreasing annually, 
 many of the important manufacturing enterprises of the 
 bay region would be done chiefly in Oakland. 
 
 You have now an opportunity to procure a municipal 
 plant. It happens that our company is organized for the 
 very purpose of furnishing you with such a plant. Foresee- 
 ing your necessities for some years we shaped our matters 
 to be able to give the best proposition possible to be made by 
 any seller of a plant, and we'spared no expense to that end. 
 We have the best water that is about the bay, water equal in 
 quality to any in the State, and we have vast quantities of 
 it; we have enough water to .supply all the population of the 
 Bay Country for the present and for many years to come. 
 The quantity we are selling to Oakland is but a very small 
 part of the properties we possess. 
 
 To get this municipal water plant has been a political 
 endeavor with you for a long time. Each time the question 
 has appeared in your politics, it has been defeated; you all 
 know by whom. The plan has always been to never allow 
 the question to come before the people. The people, how- 
 ever, are stronger than any corporation, and finally they 
 elected a Mayor and City Council who would do their will. 
 These officials sought propositions in all directions for supply- 
 ing the city with water and investigated all the tenders made. 
 They repeatedly solicited the existing company to make a 
 tender, but it as persistently refused. Finally the Council 
 selected the two best propositions offered, and submitted 
 them to you for your consideration. You voted favorably 
 upon the Bay Cities proposition, and that proposition is now 
 before you. 
 
 The company occupying the field is fighting you with its 
 wonted vigor. It does not intend that you shall have a muni- 
 cipal plant. Its stockholders and bondholders are on the
 
 24 
 
 streets soliciting every acquaintance they have to vote against 
 the bond proposition. It has a large force of paid apents 
 who interview everyone they can induce to ^ay a wi rd favor- 
 able to their interests and have them iign <u<.h statements 
 for publication. It has in its employ a number of lawyers 
 and speakers doing campaign work in it? behalf. The material 
 they use, as I have shewn in this letter are fictiti< us and 
 mi. leading statements and mi repre entati- ns. N< t daring 
 to deny the fixed demand of the pe< pie to have a municipal 
 plant, they are setting up the cry that the exi;ting plant 
 should be purchased, and getting pe< pie to say that they 
 are in favor of buying that plant. But that plant cannot be 
 bought; its price is prohibitive. Throughout this entire 
 contest that corporation has never named a figure for its 
 plant; the Council could not get it to do so. Do you think 
 it would accept for it the $7,000,000 on which it is now re- 
 ceiving from the people 7% interest, which value was fixed 
 by the courts two years ago? Far from it; it considers the 
 value of its plant increasing annually by a large sum, and 
 the Hart decision was two years ago. The corporation would 
 want much more now than it was given then. Defeat these 
 bonds and the price asked would be very much higher than 
 even the price it would fix now. That sum will always be 
 such as the people will never consent to give. It therefore 
 rests with you, the voters of Oakland, not to let pass this 
 opportunity, which once lost may never occur again, to vote 
 yourself free of the conditions which you yourselves declare 
 arc intolerable. 
 
 OAKLAND NOW CONFRONTING A WATER FAMINE. 
 
 Oakland has exhausted her present supply of water. 
 She is confronting a water famine. She must have additional 
 water from some source. The city is practically without fire 
 protection. As a relief Councilman Howard proposes con- 
 structing a salt water plant for fire purposes to cost $65,413. 
 
 With the Bay Cities municipal plant constructed there 
 would be plenty of water for fire purposes, and all else, and 
 this expenditure would be unnecessary. Even the relief 
 that Mr. Howard's salt water plant would give would not long 
 suffice. Oakland must have more water for domestic use than 
 she is now getting. This only the proposed municipal t)lant 
 can give. The putting in of the municipal plant with the 
 Bay Cities supply is an absolute necessity jar Oakland. 
 
 Very truly, * 
 
 BAY CITIES WATER COMPANY, 
 By W. S. TEVIS, President.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 ry 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 50m-10,'65 (F7824s8) 9482 
 
 IS 
 
 jf 
 
 in 
 
 i- 
 
 tercsts can uiiiy dLtacjv JLJA* V*A * j.*-w 
 CORIPANY, not City of Oakland. 
 
 9. Work for the m$&es lor three years. 
 
 ALL THE ABOVE FOR $3,750,000.00.
 
 Syracuse, N. Y. | 
 StocKlen. Calif. 
 
 UC SOUTHERN 
 
 inf~ "" 
 
 AA 000118486