The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1898-02-04
THAT CHANUrE ..BooMERANe."

The. Citizen Of Jany. II says: "Now
we warn everyone to beware of
statements sprung at the.last moment
as they may be like the Chanute
waterworks boomerang(sprung on the
morning of election, y absolutely false"
And in the issue of the Citizen of Dec.
28th, is the following: ~. J. Jones a
prominent young attorney of Chanute
was here on business today. Hegave
us some interesting figures concern
ing the water and light plants which
are controlled by the city. q per |
cent per month is what Chanute real
ICES upon the investment on the water
plant.n
Are either of the statements true ?
The Chanute water works "boom-
erang" referred TO is the statement
made by Mr.. Buchanan, city clerk of
Cbanute, and published in the official
paper of that city, and is dated April
l, 1897. have copy of the same
with signature and seal attached.
The statement shows that the city of
Chanute took possession of the water
plant Sept. 20, 1896, and from that
date to April !, 1897, rs months and
10 days. the city paid out for operat-
ing expenses. S456S and interest on
bonds S3739.12, total $8307.12. Their
total receipts for that time were 1852
"a, and the clerk adds these words,
"Total loss for full time, S4794 .3S". 1t
is true that the city had fire protec-
ton during this time. l agree with
the Citizen, the above is somewhat of
a "boomerang"-to them.
do not understand how it is that
81. j. Jones, the prominent young at
torney" could have made the state
ment he is reported to have made in
the Citizen of Dec. %. And so far as
the light plant is concerned it is abso-
lutely false in every particular. The
light plant of Chanute Is not owned
by the city but has been owned and
operated by individuals for number
of years. and, one of the principal
stock holders of the Chanute Electric
Light Plant Co. is now and has been
for years resident of lola, and the
principal editor of the Citizen had been
informedlof that fact before the issue
of his paper.
In order that might be more fully
advised regarding the q per cent
profit per month 30' per cent a year
that Chanute was receiving fl ON their
water works plant, addressed a let
ter to Hon. Hugh p. Farrelly, State
Senator of Neosho and Wilson counties
Mr. Farrelly is an old resident of Cha.
mute and / am confident voted for
what is known as the Public Utility
Bill.
Chanute, Kans. Jan. 80, 1898.
Hon. A. l.. Taylor, lola, Kans.
My dear Sir: Yours received and
thank you very much for your de-
tailed information fer which / en-
quired. Replying to your inquiry
relating to-. our water plant will say
that 1t has.not yet reached revenue
basis, that is to say the revenues
therefrom have not reached a point
sufficient to pay operating expenses
interest, etc. In all such enterprises
there are always more takers thar
there are takers, after the plant is in
We get $500 year from the railroad
company, and 1t would seem thai
with the receipts from this source WI
ought to be on a revenue basis, but
we have not yet arrived at that
point. l am somewhat Of a believer
in municipal ownership" but moi
particularly strong, that is to say
know of the disadvantages and dan
gers thereof as we'll as the advant
ages. Very truly
II. p. FARRELLY
trust that nothing more will be
said about Boomerangs, false state
ments, "a per cent per month profit
and city ownership of light plants in
Chanute. The fact is Chanute has
somewhat of white elephant on her
hands now and | do not suppose they
care about letting the world know
more about ii than they have to.
A. Il. TAYLOR.
ylag~ s bscribe for the REGISTER.