Thomas County cat., 1890-03-27
OF INTEREST TO CITIES OF THE
SECOND CLASS

David Overmyer, are here given, made
by him in the Burlington water-v o ks
case, because of the importance OF the
case to the great number of cities o.
the second class in this state.
'The petition alleges that the de-
fendant is city OF the second class.
The alleged contract grants to ONeil,
the assignor OF the plaintiff, the tight
to erect water works in said city, lay
mains and pipes along the streets and
alleys, ETC., and generally enfranchises
him to supply the city with water for
both public and private use, and author
ICES him to charge certain stated wa
ter rates from private consumers; OBJ
ligates him to furnish water to church.
es and schools free of charge, and to
erect two drinking fountains for man
and beast.
The city obligates itself to pay hy-
drant rent upon seventy hydrants for a
period o. twenty years. at fifty dollars
per year for each hydrant Cor $500
per year in ALL, unless the city shall
buy the water works and franchise,
which it has the option to do after the
expiration of five years, and again after
the expiration o. the next five years.
and SO on, every five years; and if at
the end o. twenty years the city has
not purchased the works, the contract
is to be renewed at the option Of O'Neil
or his assigns. By the terms of the
contract the city is compelled to pay
hydrant rent in the sum of 81 k500, be-
fore it's option to buy attaches. When
it does buy. it must buy not only the
plant, but it must buy at appraisal the
franchise which it has here bestowed
upon an individual, without money and
without price. If it should not buy the
works, it would in twenty years pay
out as hydrant rent the enormous sum
of 10000, :nd if the water works par
ty should elect to 60 on after twenty
years for another twenty years, the
taxpayers would be saddled with an
other S70,O00-or in all, in forty years
$40, 0,000-as hydrant rent to a party
who, at the same time, would have been
furnishing water to the citizens by and
through the franchise granted him, OF
course, IT an immense profit, and at
cost which, added 70 the annual mu-
nicipal rental, would. aggregate an inn
mense burden upon the people. If the
counsel for plaintiff in error are correct
in their statement that the plant cost
$4,000, and if tie water rate realized
ten per cent. upon the investment,
(and it is safe to assume that it would
be twice that amount), the annual
charge upon the people OF this town,
called by the courtesy of our laws a
city, would te s11,o0o; which, if paid
for the forty years, which it might run
under tie contract, would aggregate
the enormous sum OF $4,000. The
people of this mere village are thus put
to tteir election to go on for forty
years carrying this undesirable load,
which would crush city twice IS large
as de 'endant, and which would para.
lyze the defendant and put stop to
it's growth and end in bankruptcy-the
people must endure all this. or buy the
works and franch Sc at such price "a
a; praisers might put upon them, and
paw the bill at the furthest W thin a
period of ten years after purchase.
which alternative would be of doubtful
choice as against the other. To call
such a transaction contract is mis-
nomer. To suppose that any rational
mind could. in good faith, meet any
other rational mind IN the proposal and
acceptance of the same is impossible.
It is simply one Of the every day in
ventions of that piratical and predatory
class OF men who, in this venal age.
fasten themselves like vampires upon
municipalities. states, and peoples, and
suck the blood of tho multitude. It is
pro -eeding to confiscate the property
and exploit the productive capacity OF
the people of Burlington, and divert
the proceeds of their united energies
into the pockets o. gang o: robbers.
The proposition that this alleged
contract is ultra v:res, exists independ-
emily OF these monstrous features
which mark it for destruction upon
other grounds.