Los Angeles Herald, Volume 00000000602, Number 250, 7 June 1899 — CITIZENS' OPINIONS All Sorts and Conditions of Men Discuss the Propositions [ARTICLE]

CITIZENS' OPINIONS All Sorts and Conditions of Men Discuss the Propositions

B. R, Baumgardt—l favor both bond issues. W. M. Bowen, attorney—l have not considered the electric lighting plan sufficiently to answer decisively. Yes, most assuredly. W. A. Colwell of Fowler and Colwell— Yes to both proposals. I favor municipal ownership of public utilities. M. Curren—l, yes; 2, yes. S. P. Creaslnger, loans— I would not be in favor of issuing additional city bonds until the water question is settled. 2. Yes, we cannot afford to neglect our schools. Rev. Warren F. Day, First Congregational church— 1. I have not looked into it sufficiently to give a positive answer, but I favor such municipal plans on general principles. 2. We must have adequate public school facilities or in the end it will be bad for the city, assuming that the plan and the amount recommended will stand the test of investigation, I am in favor of voting the bonds. Judge J. M. Miller, of Miller & Brown— 1. Yes. I favor municipal ownership of all public utilities within the city's jurisdiction, broadly speaking. 2. Yes, certainly, our schools are the foundation of our best citizenship, and should be given hearty and ample support. Hon. T. E. Gibbon— 1. In the first place, in view of the possible early issue of water bonds to a large amount, it is not a good time to take up another question of public ownership. In the second place, I do not believe the city will make one cent through the proposed plan to acquire a distributing system for electric lighting, because of the cheap rate it is likely to get, so long as there are three competing companies in the field, as at present. If at any time completion should cease, or is likely to cease, the city could, within six months, equip itself with a system like the one proposed and thereby render itself independent. 2. Yes. George A. Pearsons, of Cook & Pearsons, real estate—l. Yes. 2. Yes. R. L. Craig, of Craig, Stuart & Co., wholesale grocers—l am very much in favor of both proposals. Rev. B. W. R. Tayler— 1. I know nothing about the comparative cost to the city of a distributing system of electricity. I may be wrong in my judgment, but it would seem to me a manifest injustice to companies already existing which have invested large sums in their respective plants to injure the value of those plants by the introduction of such a system as is proposed. 2. I am in favor of the educational bond issue, for the schools must keep pace with the growth of our population. W. F. Bosbyshell— 1. The city is already bonded heavily. I think we can get along without the municipal distributing system for the present. 2. Yes, we must provide proper accommodations for the school children. The city is growing, and we cannot afford to neglect the newcomers. H. W. O'Melveny. Vote the school bonds. I favor liberal expenditures for the schools always. Judge L. A. Groff— 1. While I am in favor of the city's owning its public utilities I do not think the emergency is so great as to warrant the issue of bonds for a distributing system at the present time. 2. In view of the school necessities, however, I would cheerfully vote for a bond issue covering all reasonable requirements. W. C. Patterson, Los Angeles National bank— 1. Because we may soon have to issue water bonds to a large amount, we should be slow to load the city down with bond issues for less important purposes. The way for a water bond issue should not be obstructed. I favor the proposed school bond issue because it seems to be necessary. D. A. Hamburger, People's store— l favor both bond issues. The city should own its own distributing plant, and the public school system should meet the needs of the community. F. W. Braun, wholesale druggist—lssue bonds on both propositions. Fred L. Alles—No as to both. We may have to make a big issue of water bonds soon. On that account, and aside from the merits of the two proposals, I think the city should not load itself down with bonds for other than water purposes. General E. P. Johnson. Los Angeles Furniture company—l favor the school bonds as a necessity, but think we can get along

without the other, loaded down as we are at present. J. T. Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald Music and Piano company— I favor both bond issues. H. Jevne, grocer—Both proposals are right in the line of progress. I favor them. W. H. Hoegee, tents and awnings—Yes as to both. We cannot do too much for the schools. Abraham Jacoby, wholesale fruit— l. Yes. 2. Yes. T. E. Yerxa, grocer—l have not considered the lighting matter, but consider it a business matter, to be settled on a business basis. The school bonds should be issued. J. H. Davisson, M. D.— I approve both plans, particularly that to improve the school facilities. We should have ample high school accommodations as well as provide properly for the lower grades. F. A. Gibson, cashier First National bank— l. I should vote for bonds to acquire a distributing system. 2. I have a great deal of confidence in the present board of education, and should be inclined to endorse any recommendations it might make. We should have ample school facilities, and I should vote for the bonds, under the existing conditions. J. R. Newberry, grocer— l. While I have not examined into the question, I am broadly speaking, in favor of the city's owning its own distributing system. 2. Yes, most assuredly. James A. Montgomery, Montgomery Bros.—l. If tt can be demonstrated that the city would save money by owning the distributing plant, I say vote the bonds. 2. Yes. George Sinsabaugh, broker— l. Yes. 2. Yes. Bishop George Montgomery—While I have not investigated the merits of the plan to acquire an electric distributing system. I am in favor of the city's owning its public utilities. R. B. Bishop, of Bishop & Co.—l. As a general proposal, I am in favor of the city's owning its own distributing system, although I have not investigated the plan offered. 2. Yes. Curtis D. Wilbur, chief deputy district attorney — I am in favor of the municipal ownership of utilities, and believe that if a private corporation can make a handsome profit by supplying electric lighting to the people that profit may just as well remain in the pockets of the people. Then, too, private corporations have, to take the risk of gathering together a business and are obliged to make charges proportionate to the risk. In the suit of the San Pedro and Long Beach Electric company to recover damages from the supervisors by reason of the city of Long Beach disincorporating and so terminating the contract the company held, it is claimed that of the $122 a month charge for electric lighting just $100 was clear profit. (No. 2.) I always vote for moneys for the increase of school facilities, unless there are special circumstances that seem to indicate that the expenditure is unwise. In view of the steady increase of our population it is essential that additional schol facilities be provided. I may say, however, that at the high school the classes are too large in my opinion. At the Annapolis naval college the system is so arranged that no teacher hears the recitation of more than ten cadets at the one time, and one hour is apportioned for the lesson. Such a system would be impracticable in the high school, but it seems to me that a happy medium might be adopted. A. E. Davis, chairman of the board of supervisors—Some scheme of municipal ownership of an electric lighting plant is desirable, but the settlement of the water question has the right of way. With it out of the way, then I think that if the city will pole and wire the city and throw the furnishing of the power open to competition electrical lighting might be obtained at a very economical rate. At the same time, I think that the city ought to go slow, as the new inventions along the line of electrical science are revolutionizing things all the time, and it might happen that a brand new plant would be installed only to be regarded as out of date within a year. (No. 2.) We need a new high school without doubt, and I believe in keeping abreast of the times, particularly in regard to the schools. First of all, however, the common schools need attention that all the children be kept at school instead of being on the streets. It is cheaper in the long run to pay for schools than it is to pay for jails, and in such case the question of cost is not a paramount one. Supervisor Field— I haven't investigated the subject, but may say that I am substantially in accord with Judge Davis, and with him believe that the city ought to go slow in acquiring an electric plant of its own. I am not posted as to the requirements of the schools, but can summarize my ideas on the subject by saying that whatever may be found to be requisite for the perfecting of our school system, that we must have. Judge Trask— I am heartily in favor of the city's obtaining its own electric lighting plant, water works and other municipal utilities. All of these things will come to us in time, and I am in favor of any proposition that will enable us to obtain any of these very desirable things. The high school is, I am told, exceedingly crowded, and some relief ought to he afforded. About six years ago there were about 600 to 700 pupils attending the high school, and then it was regarded as being crowded, and yet I hear that at the present time there are about 1200 pupils packed away in the same building. Apart from the high school. I think that the public moneys ought to he expended in the enlargement of existing school buildings rather than in the erection of new ones, save, of course, in new districts, where & school house is a necessity. Judge Luclen Shaw—With regard to the

city's obtaining: an electric lighting plant, If a practical plan can be devised. It will be all right, but I reallyi have not considered the matter. I do think, however, these bond Issues should be carefully scanned, for the margin of bonded Indebtedness Is decreasing rapidly. I don't believe In Issuing bonds i to get money to build a high school. With regard to the common schools, I have nothing to say, as X have not made myself acquainted w'.th the requirements of the schools, but with regard to the first proposition, I am of a clearly defined opinion. W. A. Hammill, sheriff of the county—l really have nothing to say, with regard to the city's acquiring an electric lighting plant beyond stating that whatever may be determined to be for the best interests of the city will have my support. Certainly I am in favor of Issuing bonds for school purposes '.f it is found' that It Is absolutely necessary to have monejj for such purpose. A new high school is badly needed, and It la In my opinion the best kind of wisdom to maintain our school system in perfect working order. Judge M. T. Allen—l am deoidedly opposed to the city's acquiring an electric lighting plant at the present time. I think a municipality ought to take up one thing at a time and' carry It to completion before embarking upon any new scheme. Doubtless In time such a thing will come about but the time, '.n my opinion. Is Inopportune. I am favorably disposed to voting bonds for the construction of school houses when needed for the instruction of scholars up to and Including the ninth grade. It Is my belief that too much money i» now be'.ng expended on our high school, and out of proportion to the benefits dierlved. The ninth grade scholars cause the congestion at the high school, and that grade should be taken out and put wher It properly belongs. Instead of increasing high school facilities the separation of the ninth grade would leave plenty of accommodations for bona fide high school pupils. Cashier A. Hadley, National Bank of California—l am not In favor of any further issue of bonds. Theclty Is too deep in that business already, and we have enough on to struggle with as tax payers. I think the issue of tunnel bonds a disgrace to the city. We could have waited unill easier times tor that work. Frank Simpson ,of Simpson Hack company—l am a believer in municipal ownership in such things. I believe that the city Is fully able to take care of a lighting system In an economical manner. As to school bonds, the lack of accommodation for scholars Is doing the city much harm. "Let the companies take care of their own lighting plants, and let the city contract with the lowest bidder," tl the verdict of Milo M. Potter, proprietor of the Van Nuys. "I believe the company is more oompetent to attend to the matter than the city, and the future years may bring lower contracts by competition." PostofTlce Inspector M. H. Flint 'wants the school bonds, and also wishes municipal ownership In the lighting matter if the city wITI appoint a proper management for the same. "The great question in all such affairs," said he, "Is that of management." Assistant Postmaster W. M. Humphrey shied at the lighting query, but stated that, In his opinion, there was as much benefit In Individual ownership as municipal. G. W. Knox—l believe in Both Issues of bonds; the city should be made as attractive as possible, and the coming generations should be made to pay their share of the cost. The reasons for both issues are good, so I hold that no good citizen should stand In the way of their being carried through. J. C. Kays—l am in favor of the bonds, but I have had all the controversy that I want for the rest of my life, recently, so I will not attempt to present any argument, further than that the city will be better oft If they should carry. C. W. Pendleton—Naturally I am In favor of both Issues of bonds. In the first place, the bond system is the only equitable manner of providing for the cost of such public measures; in the second, the argument fhat the city's ownership of its light distributing system would enable it to secure competition from all of the Electric companies, instead of, as now, being at the mercy, virtually, of one, cannot be controverted. J. J. Byrne—l cannot see any objection bonds to provide for the needs of the school department, for that Is of prime that can be offered to the issuance of school importance. Regarding the lighting distribution system, It seems to me that the city would do better to reply on private corporations In such matters, rather than attempt to go half way Into a new business. F. B. Henderson—School bonds, yes; light distribution system bonds, no. Such a municipal system Is not required, for the figure of the bids for the past few years show that competition has materially reduced the cost of the current to the city. If the city did own is plant, what assur> auce have the people, or could they have, that the different companies would not combine and agree to the placing of an exorbltantn price on the current, dividing the profits, rather than to honestly compete. R. R. Haines—l favor the bonds ,ar,d be. lieve that the municipality should own all of the supply sources of the necessaries of life like water, hbat, light, and the like, if It can be done better and cheaper than by private effort. I am an American citizen, from the landing of the pilgrims to the landing of the Filipinos, and believe in the American Idea of the greatest good to the greatest number. C. F. Herr—Don't know. I never think until after half past five In the afternoon. W. C. Hogaboom—l am strongly in favor of hte bond Issue for the city's own electric light system. It I had known that the city

was waiting for my opinion I would have said so long ago. Thell the city to go right ahead, and It win be all right with me. The matter of placing » light In front of my house can be attended to later. The school bonds should be voted also. The school house Is the bulwark of the nation. I knw this is sbecause I read It In the paper nee. We cannot have too many bulwarks. Lei us vote the bonds by all means.