The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-10-29
A MOST UNJUST DECISION.
Judge Thompson Decides for the
Water Company Corporation.

AS was anticipated the case against
the Topeka Water company viii go to
the supreme court. 1t viii be taken
there by the city because Judge VIII
liam Thompson has decided that the
city of Topeka cannot compel the com
pany to extend its mains and therefore
the franchise cannot be forfeited.
Judge Thompson came to Topeka on
the afternoon train yesterday and hand
ed down his decision and left the city
in the evening. His decision was a great
surprise to the city attorney and Mr.
Isenhart who was associated with him
in the case.
1t has been more than five years
since the suit to forfeit the franchise
was commenced in the district court
There have been almost mum DerlesS
cOntiuuances and delays until it began
to look as if the case might never be
tried The case originally included
several disputed points, but it was sim
pHfied and the one question of the ex-
tension of the mains was submitted to
Judge Thompson.
If the same course of delay is practic-
ed in the supreme court there is little
hope that the case viii be decided be
fore the franchise expires which will be
in about ten years.
City Attorney Bird was given 80 days
to prepare the case for the supreme
court and he says he hopes TO have it
advanced for hearing at an early date
ITO tell the TRUTH" said City At
tOrney Bird. Il was greatly surprised
at the decision. I confidently expected
a decision for the city and have had
no other thought Judge Thompson de
cides the case on the one question that
the city cannot compel the company to
extend the mains. He holds that the
Is miles of mains mentioned in the ordi-
nance are the only mains over which
the city has control and while the com
pany can lay its mains wherever it
pleases, it cannot compel the company
to put down mains anywhere. That
makes the case like the handle of
jug, all on the side.
We viii not lie down, but we will
keep UP the fight a long as there is
anything to do. and I feel certain that
the case viii be decided in our favor IN
the supreme court
The section of the ordinance about
which the controversy arose is as fol
lows:
THE said company hereby agrees
to erect whenever directed by said city
any additional hydrants said city may
require on said IS miles Of mains at an
annual rental of $50 each; and in any
future extensions Of pipe for every
mile of such extension the company is
to erect ten hydrants for which the city
shall pay the sum of $500 per annum
and the same prOpOrtiOnate rate for
any fraction thereof with the privilege
Of having other hydrants erected on
such mile of extension.
When the number of hydrants in
Guiding the original $50, reach the mum
Der of 300, all public fire hydrants above
that number shall be supplied with
water by said company without addi-
tional rental; provided that the city
shall pay the cost of said hydrants and
connections and expenses OF putting in
the same"
The trouble arose over the latter sec
ton, because the 300 limit had been
reached and an extension of the mains
would not have greatly benefited the
company for they could have been com
PEELED to supply the hydrants with
water free
The water company is endeavoring to
break its plain contract with the city.
Tt has been fought in its attempt to
cheat the city for years. and now a
judge has joined with it in its nefarious