The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-05-08
IN THE JUDO ES' HANDS.
Supreme Court Will Decide
Which is Right
TheCity or the Water Company,
After Long Fighting.
CityAttorneyBird Says the Company's
Action Has Been Wiliful Extor-
ton, While the Company
Cites the Letter of the
Contract.

The long drawn out water works lit
igadon reached an end today in the
supreme court. All that remains to
be done is the decision to be made by
the court. That will probably not be
made before next month.
This suit to forfeit the franchise of
the Topeka Water company is the re-
suit of an ambiguous franchise for
which the city council which passed the
ordinance and made the contract is re-
sponsibIe.
The franchise has now about five
years to run.
The whole question hinges on whether
the city can compel the company to ex-
tend it's mains and TO put in free by
drants.
The sections of the ordinance and
contract upon which this controversy
hinges are as follows:
Section 6. The city Of Topeka hereby
agrees to and does rent from said COM
pany, during the term of twenty years
and during the term of any extension
of the franchise, one hundred and fifty
hydrantS, to be located along the ff-
teen miles of water mains hereinafter
provided for, said hydrants to be 10
Gated as the mayor and city council
may by resolution direct said hydrants
to be tWO-tip hydrants and erected by
the company as the pipes are laid in
the ground; and the said city hereby
agrees to pay as an annual rental the
sum of seven thousand dollars, payable
semi-annually on the fifteenth days of
January and July in each year, for the
full twenty years, and the term OF any
extension of this franchise from the
completion of said work; and the said
company hereby agrees to erect, when
ever directed by the city, any additional
hydrants said city may require on SAID
fifteen miles of mains, at an annual
rental of fifty dollars each; and IN any
future extension of pipe, for every mile
of such extension the company IS TO
erect ten hydrants for which the city
shall paw the sum of five hundred dol
lars per annum, and the same proper
tfonate rate for any fraction thereof,
with the privilege of having other ny
drantS erected on such mile OF extern
sion All private water rates snail
be paid monthly in advance.
Section z. When the number or NY
drants including the original one hum
bred and fifty shall reach the number
of three hundred, all pubic nre ny
drants above this number snail De sup
Dlied with water by said company WIN
out additional rental; provided that the
city shall pay the cost or SAID MIGRANTS
and connections and expenses of put
ting in the same.
Section 49, The city may require
said company to extend it's mains along
any graded street that can be reached
through a continuous line OF gradeq
streets; and further, to require Salu
company to lay its mains on sI t5tI5
which are not on grade; provided that
when such street is brought to grade
that the expense of relaying the mains
and pipes shall be paid by the city
The company claims that they may
avtaod the mains beyond the limit of 10
miles called for in the ordinance put the
city cannot compel such extension; -
is claimed by the water company tLdt
in making the contract the city guarded
being
and paw for water from more than 5UV
MIGRANTS while the company prolecteu
itself against being compelled 70 make MAKE
extension along which hydrahtS must
be furnished free of cost:
The water company claims that II the
CITY has a right to order extensions pc
yond the 10 miles calleq AOI az t1i9 ~
dinance nothing would preNent the
council from ordering 300 miles OF pipe
mt down anywhere wiUhin the city linn
its.
of the contract would
mean confscation of the waterWorAs
civ ATTORNEY Bird claims that the
extension of the water mains is neceS-
sary to protect life and property and
that the company discrlmlnates against
certain portions of the city IN not sup
plying them with water
The city attorney takes it for granted
that the contract requires the company
to extend it's mains and makes his ar
2unent along the Inc t44eAN liz lily 4Ae19
= right to enforce the provisions of the
contract. He says:
seThere is no honest or reasonable
contention about this matter. It is
simply an attempt at willfuI. intention
al extortion, and inasmUch as it has the
audacity to plead in its answer in this
druggists at so cents and $1-O0, and the
Pyramid Pills at % cents, or by mail
from Pyramid Co, Albion, Mich.
case that on the 10th day of February.
1894. il went into the hands of a receiv-
er in a certain case in the United States
circuit court that it does not care much
forfeiture is granted or not
company has violated it's contract with
the city and thereby forfeited its fran
chise and that is the question the court
has to determine.