The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1898-11-05
THE WATERWORKS.
A Detailed Statement From the
City Committee.

of Topeka. As such committee, we find
the following to be the facts and give as
some of the reasons why the city OF
Topeka should own Ats waterworks
plant
First-On August Is. 1881, the Topeka
Water Supply company was organized
under the laws of Kansas with capt.
tai stock of $2O0,0 900 to build water
plant, furnishing the city Of Topeka and
kts inhabitants with water On Septem-
Der s. 1881, the city Of Topeka passed
ordinance No. 400 granting franchise
to said The Topeka Water Supply com
pany. of which sections and ) are as
follows:
'Section T. When the number of by
drants, including the original one hun
dred and fifty, shall reach the number
of three hundred, all public fire by
drants above this number shall be sup
piled with water by said company with
out additional rental; Provided, that the
city shall pay the cost of said hydrants
and connections and expenses Of put
ting in the same.
Section 10. The city may require
said company to extend its mains along
any graded street that can be reached
through continuous line Of graded
streets; and further, to require said
company to lay its mains on streets
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"
This company was composed of citi-
zens of the city of Topeka and furnished
water. extended mains and located by
drants in q general way satisfactory to
the inhabitants until about 1889 or 1890.
In 1888 this company increased Ats CAPT.
tai stock to $500 600.
December Is. 1889, the Topeka Water
company was organized with a capital
stock of $500, 600. January % 1890. the
city passed ordinance No. 1924 which
authorized the transfer of the franchise
and privileges granted by the city of
Topeka to the Topeka Water Supply
company. January 81, 1890, the Topeka
Water Supply company transferred all
of its franchises, rights and privileges
to the Topeka Water Supply company,
for the consideration of S525 900.
February 1, 1890, the Topeka Water
company executed a trust deed to the
Atlantic Trust company for $500 900
and issued bonds under said trust deed
to the amount of $1,000, 900 which added
to the S120, 600 of bonds formerly issued
by the Topeka Water Supply company,
created a total bonded Indebtedness on
said property to the amount of 81, 200,-
900. February 10. 1894, an action was
brought by the Atlantic Trust company
against the Topeka Water company to
fOreclose its mortgage and on the same
day a receiver was appointed who took
charge of the property Of the Topeka
Water company and who. 1t seems, is
still in charge and control of said COM
pany. Decem Der 6, 1895. judgment was
recovered by the Atlantic Trust COM
pany against the Topeka Water COM
pany for 81 $50 900 with interest at per
cent from August I, 1898, and said pro-
perty, franchise and privileges were
sold to Charles F. Street at a United
States masters sale for $525,000.
In the meantime William B. Strong as
trustee, had commenced an action in
the United States circuit court to fore
close the mortgage executed by the To-
peka Water Supply company for $780,
600 and recovered a judgment against
the Topeka Water company for about
$3.50 900.
August 6. 1896. the Topeka Water
company organized under the laws of
New Jersey, with headquarters at Jer-
sey City, with a capital stock of 81 $780,
600, 81 900 of which stock was paid in.
September q, 1896, Charles F. Street
sold to the Topeka Water company of
New Jersey, the property, franchise and
privileges purchased at the United
States masters sale for $500, 900 Of
stock and 81, $780, 900 gold interest bearing
bonds.
The above is a brief history Of the
transactions and conditions Of the three
different corpora tons that have fur
nished water to the city of Topeka since
1881.
Until the time arrived when the num-
Der of miles of mains reached Is miles
and hydrantS were located to the num-
Der of three hundred, the water COM
panteS were always anxious, ready and
willing to extend mains and locate ad-
ditional MIGRANTS, but when in 1887 the
city of South Topeka was consolidated
with Topeka, the number of hydrants in
the consolidated city amounted to three
hundred and sixteen, the water COM
pany then declined to locate additional
hydrants or extend its mains except as
st desired. It was understood by the
officers of the city that when the capital
stock of the Topeka Water Supply COM
pany was doubled and the property
transferred to the Topeka Water COM
pany, the Kansas corporation, the mains
would be extended and additional by
drants located, but those hopes were
not realized.
On May Is. 1890. the mayor and coun-
ell passed a resolution requesting and
directing the Topeka Water company
to extend its mains into what was
known as the dry district in the city
of Topeka and to locate necessary fire
hydrants to protect the property in
terests in said districts. May Is, 1890,
this resolution was served upon the To-
peka Water company. In the course of
time, the city of Topeka received COM
munication from the Water company
informing the city that it was under no
legal obligation to the city to extend
its mains, nor locate more than 300
hydrants under ordinance No. 400
December q, 1891, the mayor and
council passed a resolution directing the
city attorney to commence an action
to compel the Water company to either
extend its mains and locate additional
MIGRANTS, or to forfeit the franchise of
the company. In June. 1892, the suit
was brought IN the district court of
Shawnee county in accordance with
said resolution, which suit was contin-
ued from time to time until March "a
1857 when al dAAeAU6O ana supplement
tai petition was filed and issues Joined
thereon, and said action was tried in
September, 1896, before Judge William
Thompson, who decided said cause on
october %. 1896. holding that the cftv
was powerIess to compel the Water
company to extend its mains beyond the
original fifteen miles or to locate more
than three hundred hydrants. This
judgment was appealed from by the
city to the supreme court of the state
On June z. 1897. the supreme court af-
drmed the decision of the lower court
on the ground that the proper action
had not been brought, and failed to
pass upon the question at all as to
whether the city could compel the Wa