Newport's Water-Land Lease Fight Heads to the Voters
Ahead of the Dec. 3, 1907, municipal election, the Citizens' Independent Party asks whether the city should spend public money to defend a controversial 99-year lease on the Carter water land.
In order to more plainly outline the principles of the Citizens' Independent Party, we desire to call the attention of the public to the resolutions adopted by that party in convention assembled November 14, 1907, particularly that part of the resolutions referring to the acquisition of the Carter water land. This, in fact, is the only question of magnitude before the people in the present municipal campaign, and to sum it up briefly:
First—Shall the city, through its governing body, proceed to employ counsel and expend from $100 to $500 in an attempt to dissolve the present injunction restraining the payment of $1600 in warrants issued in payment of a 99-year lease on the Carter water land?
Second—Or shall we place this burden upon the owner or owners of the warrants, where it rightfully and justly belongs?
Third—Granting that the injunction be dissolved, which is a matter of considerable doubt, is it a desirable investment for the people of the town of Newport, particularly in view of the fact that the town is already under contract obligations with the present water system and have the right and privilege of purchasing the same on a 7 per cent interest bearing basis at the expiration of six years from date?
If this water land is leased as proposed it will be necessary to proceed at once to appropriate the water thereon in order to conserve the people's rights thereto under the laws of the state of Idaho.
So much for the water question.
Speaking generally, the laws of the state of Washington provide for the purchase of public utility corporations operating water, light and sewer systems, etc., by means of condemnation and appraisement proceedings. Consequently there is no call for the payment of exorbitant or unreasonable rates for any of these necessities.
However, the candidates of the Citizens' Independent Party are duty bound, according to resolutions adopted and heretofore published in The Miner, to first ascertain and be governed by the people in dealing with matters of this nature.
Furthermore, it is the opinion of this committee that any question regarding the expenditure of a considerable sum of the people's money should first be submitted to the voters of the town.
There has been much opposition to the pledging of candidates to support, maintain and enforce law and order. At least resolutions to this effect were opposed by a meeting held subsequent to adoption of the same by the Citizens' Independent Party.
We want it distinctly understood that the candidates of the Citizens' Independent Party stand for the strict enforcement of law and order; and for the strict regulation of saloons and corporations, and not for the extermination of either, but a "square deal for all."
The Citizens' Independent Party is the only party which has openly declared itself upon the questions of the day, and has attempted to put them fairly and squarely before the people in order that they might pass judgment thereon December 3rd, 1907, by choosing officers from the candidates who might represent their views in the matter.
H. Saddler, E. S. Appel, Alva S. Sherlock. Campaign Committee Citizens' Independent Party.
“Any question regarding the expenditure of a considerable sum of the people's money should first be submitted to the voters of the town.”
In 1907 Newport voters were asked whether the city should spend public money to defend a 99-year lease on water land—or leave the burden on the warrant holders. The question of who controls a town's water and who pays for it still drives local politics, from utility rates to annexation fights.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.