The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1882-03-23

Under the head of Settled an article
appeared in the Republican last week
signed Councilman :" We think he is
the gentleman in whose behalf the
writer gained the dIspieasuTe OF Mr..
Soden two years ago. As We stated that
the contract with Mr. Soden was Tor five
years we suppose the average reader got
the impression that the matter was
''settled" tor that space of time. II
Councilman" will look at the article in
which he says THE NEWS went out of
its way "to cover Mr.. Soden ali over
with tally" he will find
that IL urges the council
to complete the arrangement for
the removal Of the works 10 the NeOsho.
THE NEWS merely gave Mr. SOden cred
it for that display of good business
sense which II cannot cOnscientiOdsl y
give to the ,.iormer couneiiP in the mat
ter of the location of the water works.
"COuncilman" will find that in the dis
cussion of public matters in this paper
personal considerations are not taken
AAAtf anu lItSS lhC kChllC-
man it accuses US of dealing out taHy to
is US often dissatisfied with the course
of the paper AS is COUNCILMAN"
While We are always pleased to have
any of our citiZ ,ns do we'll. and to give
them credit Tor any action that is cred
liable, we do not pretend TO shape
our course III public matters
To please individuals We had much
rather praise councils than 10 criticlse
them unfavorably. II ID not II pleasant
duty for Us to condemn any of our Gill
zens who are acting IN public capaci-
| ty, but il is a duty we shall not shrink
from performing when we think il due
TO the public interests. Councilman"
misrepresents us when he says we al
ways seemed to have Il marked i'll will
against the former council. He lodges
all around the poiBts we have condemn
ed, to-wit: first, In letting the con-
tract for the water works when there
was only one bid in and when
it was known there would be
others offered IL few days
time were given. by this act the city
undoubtedly lost from 5000 to 5000.
| Second, in locating the water works at
the present site. when they had album
dant notice that an expensive law suit
would follow. and that finally the city
would have TO go TO the expense of re-
moving them. In spite of this the
works were located in q bull-headed
disposition To beat Soden. These are the
two points We have always blamed the
"former council" for, and no amount
of palaver about a certain meeting that
was held and about 4 preference for a
location on the Cottonwood will ever
cover, them up. or explain away the un-
accountable stubbOrness or stupidity
of those who made the location under
the circumstances. Not one member of
the body would have. done what
that council did In either of the
matters complained Hf if they had been
acting for themselves. While II majority
ol the people perhaps preferred the Cot
tonwOod location, not u citizIn would
have. objected to the Neosho location if
the council had informed Them OF the
facts, which il was their duty to do.
They knew, or ought to have known, be-
fore the loc4ctiOn was made that they
hal M right to locate where they did.
Had they been building for themselves
they would have been very care |
full To have first found out whether they |
had any right to the site or not. We |
makethe point that the council has no
right morally, even if il has legally, to |
thus fool away thousands of dollars of
the peoples money. Had the location |
of the water works been managed with |
business Judgment, we have not the least |
doubt but that the city treasury in the
end would have been better off by Sl2,-
900 or $4,000. 1t may be very witty
and all that for Councilman" To whack
away at us, and we have no objection to
his putting in his spare time that way
if he finds it profitable, but facts are
stubborn things, and the public will
hardly be satisfied with "Councilman's"
way Of trying to get rid of them.