The decision of the Police Commissioners on Monday week (a report of which appeared in last week's issue), with regard to the water supply, would be received by a majority of the ratepayers with satisfaction. There must, indeed, be few favourable to such a scheme, no proof of it having been laid before last meeting. We took occasion to say when writing an article on this subject, which appeared in the "Advertiser" on the 3d June last, that had Mr Thomson been the bearer of a numerously signed petition from the ratepayers in favour of the gravitation scheme, he would have been justified in moving accordingly, and yet, in a speech which he read at last meeting, he said he did not know whether the majority of the ratepayers were in favour of it or not, nor was he aware that the Commissioners were so. With respect to the latter the decision was a decided one, the motion being defeated by five to three. We have no hesitation in saying that those who voted against the motion acted according to the minds of the rate-payers. They were this time better prepared for him, for they well remembered the needless expenditure in which they had been involved about two years ago by his assertion that the water was impure and contaminated, and after six samples had been sent to Edinburgh and analysed, it was sent back as perfectly pure, together with an account for £20. Mr Thomson's views regarding the gravitation scheme were very narrow, which the Provost soon found out when treating the question at considerable length. Some of the principal incidents connected with the scheme were omitted, or rather we should say he was not in possession of the knowledge thereof, such as the purchase of land for a reservoir, the number of carts of clay required (cartage alone would cost at least £600), and the supply which the reservoir must necessarily contain. Indeed, there was scarcely a single statement made but what was controverted. Mr Thomson gave no proof that he was capable of dealing with such a question.