The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-01-16

OF Freeman and Edwards rallied at the
next meeting and resurrected the issue.
and by a majority vote succeeded In
reversing the previous action or the
council. The council decided to proceed
in contempt of section $500. on the the
DRY that ii was unconstitutional
In the meantime the controversy In
the council had developed bad blood, IL
being charged that the position taken
by Aldermen Keith and McMurphy in
dicated that they We're working in the
interests OF the water company. while
Il was broadly limited that Aldermen
Freemen and Edwards were pushing
the interests Cf a Missouri river pump
ing Ecneme that was known 10 be try
ing TO break down the exist
ing water company. Neither side
made charges Of corruption at first; but
II finally became whispered around quiz
city that the Helena Water company
had been trying FOR mcm.hs TO bride
Aldermen Freeman and Edwards, offer
ing them as high as from $4,000 70 s25.-
600 each for their vote, thus implying
that the aldermen who were cdvocat4ng
nhe Observance CT SectiCn $500 OF the
code were doing 80 because they had
been corruptly approached by agents
of the water company. Aftcr waiting
several weeks IN vain Tor Aldermen
Freeman and Edwards - bring tine
matter set forth in Cholr private utter
ances Of this character before the coun-
Gil, for official aditcn. Alderman Keith
introduced a res 1tut.1n refeuung 20
such rumous ard demanding thorough
investigation into nheir truth or falsity.
From this resolution a committee ap-
pointed by uhs mayor instituted a thor
ough ssagch INTO The integrity or all the
members CT The council. relative to the
controversy ovur the waiter que stiOn.
Keith, McMunly ami ona or two other
l..r.s a
committee that the publlc might decide
as to the character and credibilbty OF
the evidence produced, but they were
defeated In this and the committee sat
behind closed doors.
As soon as the city council decided 70
proceed without reference TO che Jaw.
and. advertise for bids, the Helena
Water company sued the city for the
water Il had been furnishing by order
of the court, and for which IL had not
been paid. IL also took steps to enjoin
the city from advertising for bids. and
the term!naticl of this question in
volve sthe cons1htuthonalty Of the law
above referred TO. The council imme-
diately directed the expenditure OF any
sum required TO procure extra legal
help to wage war on the constitutional
tty Of that law. 81 600 being laid out al
once for that purpose. a circumstance
On connection with the acton Of the
council In advertising T r bids Is that
the specifications pT'escri rcd bar out the
existing plant. aqthCugl BIS franchise
runs for II yCiars yet ar as the Madi-
son River company will probably not
come I'm under thc advertising plan.
through inability 10 float ITS bonds.
with legal complications before ~. a
clear field ~ Offered 60 the Missouri
River Pumping company. Keith and
McMurphy, while refusing TO pay thu
present water company the price asked
for Its plant, still insist that IL should
be taken under condemnation proceed
ings at Its actual value, claiming that
ft has an ample supply OF water. over
1900, 900 gallons, 81 Is SAID. going e
waste daily. that might be DETECTED In
to a reservoir at small expense to the
city. II II owned the plant They brand
dhe pumping scheme as a robbery when
a gravity system is possible.
So the merry war goes On. II Is quite
likely THAT. as the water question Is IN
fhe courts. 81 viii be "a long time before
the municipality of Helena knows ex-
actly where - IS at.