The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1897-03-19

y
citizen would give candid and hon
est answer to that question, and then
act on his conviction, there would be
no more talk about public ownership
under the Hanna law. 1t is no an
swer to say, as some may, 80, the
REGISTER is against city ownership
anyway" for the personal opinions
of this paper do not in any way alter
facts. Neither is it an answer to say
that somebody is Threatening law
suit" for to say that measure so
radical as this and which effects so
many and varied interests will get
into the courts is simply to state what
every man of sense must recognize as
moral certainty. No man ought to
allow his preference or his preiudices
to blind his mind to facts, and the
statements here made in regard to the
extreme improbability, if not the alb
solute impOssibility, of this city being
able to float,S3O, 900 of "Public Utility"
bonds, are simply statements of facts.
And here are some facts that should
not be lost sight of: The assessed
valuation of the city of lola is $248-.
city is S27, 100, nearly three thousand
dollars more than the extreme limit
allowed under the general statutes
even to city of second class. Count
ing our share of the county. township
and school district Indebtedness the
sum total of public debt for which
the property owned i'm this city must
now be taxed is S67, $50, or little over
% per cent. of the total assessed val
uatiOn. To this must be added with
in a year at longest, and probably
this summer, at least $4,000 for a
new school house. Increase this by
the sum necessary under the decree
of the court to buy the gas plant and
we will find the town loaded with
bonded indebtedness to the amount
of nearly so per cent. of its total as
sessed valuation. Even if we could
float the bonds do we want to risk
the awful load of taxation that would
fall upon us on so precariOus an in
vestment as natural gas plant?
The REGISTER does not deny that it
is not believer IN the theory of num-
icipal ownership of public utilities,
and it would therefore probably OPP
pose the proposition to have lola go
into the gas business under any cir
cumstances. But it seems to US that
if we favored the theory of public
ownership ever so much we should
yet be be opposed to carrying it into
practice here this year. We will lose
none of our rights by waiting year,
and we will know a whole lot more.
We will probably know for one thing
whether the Hanna law is good for
anything by letting others litigate it
instead of paying the bill ourselves.
We will understand the whole ques-
ton better by talking and thinking
over it for a year. We will have
thousand more people here, we hope,
to help US decide the question and
pay the bills. We can build school
house which is a necessity but which
we can hardly hope to get if we vote
a big lot of gas bonds. And best of
all we can have all our money and
our energy and our good nature to
pull together to get the town started.
What we want here is aOOrk, and
there is not days work for any man
who hasn't got it already in this gas
proposition, There is work for every
body who wants it if we quit agitat-
ing and all pull together.
We have presented these facts
without any wish to cast reflection
upon anybody and with an eye sim
gle to what we conceive to be the best
interests of the town, and we trust
they will be considered by those who
may read them in the same spirit.
Since the foregoing was put in type
the following was handed to US with
the request that it be published. If
anything were needed to settle the
question about any probable advance
in the price of gas this would seem to
end it:
At meeting of the Board of Directors Of
the lola Gas Co. successors to the Allen County
Gas Co and the lola Cooperative Gas CO.. the
following resolution was adopted by an unan-
imOus vote
WHEREAS. 1t has come to the knowledge of