People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1895-05-30
The Waterworks Question.

has received an answer 10 MS leUIef
to ChaS. Perry, Westerly, r. l., the
president OF the Wellington water
works company.
AS we predicted, Mr.. Perry cannot
come to Wellington now, not before
the last of June, and judging from
past experiences, he could very reason
ably calculate that by that time the
people generally will have ceased to
think or talk much about the water
works question. This delay will also
gives his representatives and their
miniOns in teis city time to get in all
the work of which they are capable in
modifying public sentiment and fix
ing individuals favorably to the water
works company.
In the first place, we see no necessi-
tY nor prOpriety in the city council
awaiting Mr.. Perry'S pleasure or con-
venience in coming to Wellington.
The water committee Of the city
council started out to demonstrate
what the real facts are with reference
to our waterwOrks system and the pro-
lection which they afford our property
owners from loss by fire. This COM
mittee announced that they would
make three separate tests. They
made one. Then at the request Of
Mr.. Fultz, they suspended operations
until he could have time tn hear
from Mr.. Perry. Now why should
they not 60 on with the remaining
tests? Would the august presence of
Mr.. Perry make an inch stream of
water come any nearer reaching the
top of the CupOla on the Arlington
hotel? Our opinion still is that this
WuUlG LlduCuNCI 10 ldJnOl oIICh
scheme to divert public attention and
the city authorities from pursuing
this investigation.
The waterwOrks people make a
great talk about how much money
they spent on this plant and all that.
But the city has nothing to do with
this phase of the business: the city
is not responsible for any bad invest
ments made by these Yankees: the
city should not be required to make
their losses good to them by paying
for something it does not get. Be-
fore these people became the owners
of the wateTwOrkS, Mr.. Fultz himself
informed them that the whole system
was fraud and a swindle upon the
city. They bought it knowing that
they would MT and could not COM
ply with the contract with the city
which they must carry out before they
could honestly collect dollar of
water rental. If in view of these
facts they spent $4,000 or any other
amount of money upon the water
works system, they did it with their
eyes open; the fact, if fact it be, that
the investment has failed to pay
them, furnishes no argument for rob-
bling this city out of thousands of
dollars in years past or in the years to
come. Many man in this city has
made investments that failed to pay
but that fact has never been held to
be sufficient reason why he should
not comply with his contracts. If
such plea were good defense, there
are hundreds of thousands Of dollars
in judgements upon the dOcketS Of our
district court that would never have
been there.
We believe the city council should
60 right ahead and test our water
works system, thoroughly, fairly and
impartially, in exact accord with the
provisions of the ordinance. If they
do not come up to the standard
required by the contract OF the water
company, then the city should pursue
the remedy afforded in by the ordi-
nance. Then if Mr.. Perry wants to
talk business and make a new, an
honest and square deal with the city,
by which our taxpayers will pay what
the water protection afforded them is
worth and no more, the city will be
in a position to talk buSineSs.-Mail.
The Rent Question.