The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1897-03-26
CoNOERNING OoNs1srENoY.

CONCERNING CONSISTENCY.
In as grave matter as the PROPOSE
tion to vote $4,000 bonds, which
would be lien upon every dollars
worth of property in the town, and to
put into the hands of the city the
largest business enterprise in it, it
would seem to be a matter of some
moment for the people to know whom
therefore, that so important docu-
ment as BULLETIN No. 2" should not
have been signed by its authors.
The people would be interested in
knowing whether the men who volun-
teer such voluminOus advise TO the
property holders of the town are
themselves property holders; wheth-
er they have made such distin-
guished success in their own business
that the people ought without ques-
tiOn to take their advise in regard to
the public business; whether they
have contributed with such liberality
when money was to be raised to adj
vance the interests of the town as to
entitle them to the gratitude of their
fellow citizens. But since we are left
to grOpe in the darkness as to these
points the only thingsleft for us is to
consider the arguments they have
addressed to us on their merits, and
that the REGISTER may do at some
future date if it seems to be worth
while.
For the present, however, we care
only to reply briefly to the remarks
about the part taken by the editor of
this paper In the passage of special
act allowing the city of lola to vote
$4,000 bonds to buy or construct
gas plant, and in the passage of a bill
authorizing cities of the second class
to vote bonds for the same purpose.
AS to the first of these bills, we
secured its passage because we were
petitiODed to do so by the city council
and the Board of Trade. AS a repre-
sentative we could hardly have done
less than carry out what seemed to be
the wishes of our constituents, what
ever our personal opinion was. But
at the same time that we were petit
toned to pass this act. we were
assured that as matter of fact 1T aOas
not expected that the city mould eVe r
GUGiL itself of the privileges granted
under 1T, but that it might help us to
get reduced prices from the gas COM
pany. And as an evidence that this
was the sentiment that existed at
that time, any action that had been
contemplated under this act was
abandoned as soon as the price was
reduced.
In regard to the second act, mas
much as it related only to cities of the
second class, of which there was none !
in our district, it should not be mat
ter of surprise if we paid but little
attention to it. But if any one will
take the trouble to look up the act he
will see that it is vastly different from
the Hanna bill. In the first place it
requires a petition of utree-ffths of
the taxpayers to call an election, in
stead of two-fifths as in the Hanna
bill; in the second place it requires a
of t1OO-thirds of the voters at
the election before the bonds can be
issued, instead of bare majority as
in the Hanna bill; and in the third
place it allows but Is per cent of the
assessed valuation instead of 20 per
cent as in the Hanna bill. These are
very material differences indeed. If
they are not material why did our
''public utility" friends here work so
hard for the passage of the Hanna
bill? They knew that in all human
lola would be a city of the
second class as soon as the census
could be taken. Why did they not
save the cost of lobbyist and wait
until action could be taken under the
law already on the statute book?
Was it not because they feared the
provision requiring three-fifths of the
lax payers for the petition and two
birds Of the voters for the election?
Was not the Hanna bill deliberately
designed that minority of the tax
payers might call an election, relying
lpOn the floating, non.tax paying vote I
o furnish the majority at the election?
# that is not the case, and if seventy