The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1898-10-27
SHALL IT
BE THE CITY'S.
Citizens Discuss Public Owner
ship of WaterwOrks.
Almost Unanimous in Favor of
It.
ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY
Mr.. JOab MulVane Where Pres
ent Action
Would Not Be Just to the Wa
terWOrks Company.
ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY

discussion of the question. It was pre-
cipitated by the report of the special
committee which was charged with the
investigation of the question
The report which was exhaustive was
read by S. H. Downs, chairman of the
committee and it was evident that the
committee wanted to have the propo-
sition for the city to acquire the water
works plant to carry. The table read
proved that Topeka is paying higher
water rates than any city which owns
its own plant with the exception Of
Kansas City, Mo.
After the report had been submitted
ID. " Hinckley, who engineered the
Newton municipal waterworks last year
and who is now planning municipal
works for four other cities, said: I'm
der the ordinance contract with the wa
ter company the city agreed in 1881 that
after 20 years it would either extend the
cOmpany'S franchise for another 20
years or become the owner of the wa
terwOrks plant at the fair and equitable
value thereof. That ordinance provides
that if the city and the company can
not agree as to the fair value the dis
trict court shall ascertain the value in
such manner as the court may determ-
dne. Regardless of what the prOclama-
ton for the bond election may contain
do not believe that the city admins
tratlOn has any idea of building new
works nor that it can do so if the Ordi-
nance of 1881 constitutes a contract be-
L
one question before this club or before
the people, and that question is shall
the city become the owner of the pres
ent waterworl1s at the fair value there
of, or to simplify it, shall the city own
waterWOrks. After that is determined
the council will have to decide whether
they will agree with the water COM
pany upon a price to be paid for the
present works. or ask the court to es-
tablish the fair and equitable value
thereof.
81 am in favor Of municipal ownership
every time and believe the people will
vote that way by a large majority"
JOab MulVane said: This is a ques-
ton of interest to every tax payer and
our action is important. The city is
under an obligation to this water COM
pany and feature of the ordinance is
that at the end of 20 years the city shall
purchased the plant. This contract is in
equity and fact a contract for 20 years.
Il know Of no method by which
the city can acquire this property be-
fore the term expires. A contract be-
tween individuals would be carried out
and see no reason why a contract be-
tween the city and corporation should
not. l do not understand why this
should be agitated out of time do
not believe in this city making value
less property of this company by build
ing new plant or attempting to take
1t by force of law. That is not honor
able as between individuals and it is
not honorable as between the city and
this company and I want to enter my
protest have not a dollar of interest
IN this plant and my interest is with
you as taxpayers We might go on and
vote bonds but we could not sell a dol
lars worth of these bonds Kansas
City tried to do it and failed This is a
waste of public money and I publicly
and now censure our city council for
precipitating this question now. / also
censure City Attorney Bird if he has
encouraged this proceeding"
H w. Benedict: THE committee was
hof
this question with reference to the pur-
chase of the plant or building a new
one would come up, but as I see it now
the only question is how we shall vote
on these bonds. After that is settled
the question of whether we shall build
a new plant or purchase this one will
come up"
City Attorney w A s. Bird ap-
prove of this report and I believe it is
along the right line and I think that it
is true that the only question now is
how we shall vote. In 1882 the question
of lighting the city came up and we adj
vertised for bids and best bid $13 per
light. The city built a plant and at no
time since then has cost been more than
Sc and is now about 81.
I investigated municipal water works
in Philadelphia and found that it costs
the same for water for a II room house
there as it does for a Z room house in
and the water company makes
a profit.
The Topeka water company was
anxious to extend its mains and locate
hydrants until the 800 limit was reached.
In 1887 South Topeka annexed and II
hydrants were added, making 317, and
the city refused to pay hydrant rental
for them. In 1890 the city asked the
water company to extend its mains and
it refused. The company claimed that
it was not under obligation to extend
mains more than Is miles and supply
more than 300 hydrants. The refusal
of the company to extend its mains and
reduce its rates was SpOnSible for the
trouble between the city and the COM
pany. There is a. question whether the
new CORPORATION has any franchise at
all. The courts have held that a COM
pany can not transfer or mortgage its
franchise. Ny judgment is that the
present company has no franchise and
We are under no obligation to it what
ever. The only question now is whether
it is deemed expedient for the people
of Topeka to own water plant or con-
tinue to buy its water. If the city has
to build a plant it can hardly be done
before the franchise expires, which is in
1901
If this company has no franchise We
can condemn it at any time.
Ex-COunciIrnan c. H. NettelS-SOme
time ago while serving as a member of
the city council became of the Opin-
ion that the controversy between the
city and water company ought to be
settlement and supported it as best
could but it failed
The character of this contract is one
that has been discussed. It provides
that the city must purchase OF extend
the franchise in 1901 but the company
itself does not insist upon the perform
ance of this contract. The fact is that
when this ordinance was passed there
was no law on the statute books au-
thorizing such a contract. The fact OF