The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1898-11-05

NF44F = y = y y y = y y = y y
Water company was dissolved and
wiped out of existence.
In 1895, the Topeka Water company
had the assessment and taxes of its
property in the city Of Topeka, Except
about SO, 10000 of personal property,
transferred from the city of Topeka to
Topeka township. In 1896 all property
of the Topeka Water company within
the corporate limits of said city was
assessed in said city. The receiver or
the Topeka Water company sought TO
have this assessment transferred to To-
peka township. Failing in this, he then
tried to have the assessment reduced
and when this was refused, he then
threatened injunction proceedings to en-
join the collection of the taxes in the
city of Topeka, and on september s.
1897, he brought an action In the cir
cult court of the United States in the
name of the Topeka Water company,
the New Jersey corporation, to enJoin
the collection Of all taxes of said Water
company due and payable in the city
of Topeka. In 1897 the property of the
Topeka Water company was again as
sessed in the city of Topeka at $685.
$4,000. These taxes the Water company
refused to pay The Water company
having failed and refused to pay It's
taxes due to the city of Topeka for 1896
and 1897, amounting to $11, $780, the
city then refused to pay any more
hydrant rental until the tax question
was settled.
In the summer of 1898. by agreement,
the city paid to the Water company
all hydrant rental due it under the or
dinance, and the Water company paid
its taxes for the years 1896 and 1891
When the city of South Topeka was
consolidated with the city OF TOpekap
the total number of hydrants of the con-
solidated city amounted to 316. Each
seni-annua1 statement sent in by the
Water company included all hydrants
at the rate of $4,000 per year in excess
of three hundred which the city refused
to pay but did pay for the full number
of 300 at the price provided for in or
dinance No. 400.
January Is, 1897, the receiver of the
Topeka Water company brought suit
in the United States circuit court for
S5,362.74, claiming that amount as due
for the additional hydrants located in
what was formerly the city of South
Topeka, which action is now pending
and undetermined.
= From about the year 1889, the city
had been using its best endeavOrs in
every fair and reasonable way proper
to induce the Water company to ex-
tend its mains into large and thickly
populated portions OF the city which had
grown up since 1881 and to locate
MIGRANTS for the protection of the prop
erty against fire. On numerous Oc-
casions resolutions were passed and
personal appeals made to the officers
of the Water company asking it to eX-
tend it's mains and locate additional
hydrants, but the Water company firm
way grant to the city the rights which
the city claimed it was entitled to under
sections z and 10 Of ordinance No. 400,
and as the inhabitants of the city in
said territory were certainly entitled
to. as they willingly and regularly paid
their taxes to raise the funds to pay to
said Water company the sum of $14,-
500 90 per annum for fire protection.
During the years of 1896 and 1897, the
city officers made numerous appeals to
and requests of the management of the
Topeka Water company to grant ex-
tension of mains in at least some pOr-
tons of the city, those most thicl1ly
populated, and to locate hydrantS for
fire protection. Finally in the summer
of 1897, Charles f. Street, who claims
to represent the Topeka Water cOmpa-
ny, the New Jersey corporation, APP
peared before the city council, but new
er submitted a written proposition for
a, complete compromise that was tang
ible to act upOn-nOthing but a skele-
ton and would not agree that their
franchise should actually terminate in
1901, even if a compromise should be
agreed upon.
The suggestions Of the company did
not meet the approval of the mayor and
council for the following among other
reasons:
First, in considering the matter it
was suggested by the city that If any
compromise was effected, it should in
no way grant any extension of the
rights and franchises claimed by the
water company and the city desired to
place a limitation upon the provisions
that all contractual relations between
the city and the water company should
end and cease in September, 1901. To
this the water company absolutely re-
fused to agree.
The water company proposed that the
city should order at least two miles OF
mains with ten hydrants per mile, each
year, and on failure to do so, the same
could not be required by the city in any
subsequent year.
DTODOSed I
a. reduction Of 20 per cent on rates for
houses containing five rooms or less
only, while the city commended that
there were but a. small number of hOuS-
es in the city of Topeka of five rooms or
less that were using water at all.
Again the water company proposed
that in case of compromise and settle
ment of controversy, that 1t was to al
low it's property in the future to be as
sessed and taxed in the city &c Topeka.
This was considered no concession at
all by the city, as the city claimed that
all property within the corporate limits
of the city should be assessed and taxed
in the city, and that the water compa-
ny's property should be treated the
same as private individuals.
The water company refused to agree
to the reduction of water rates to pri-
vate consumers that the city thought
fair and reasonable, the city on Decem-
Der 6, 1897, passed an ordinance reduc-
ing water rates to private consumers
about 20 per cent.
The water company then, on Febru-
airy 3, 1898, brought an action in the cir
cult court of the United States to re-
strain the city from putting into effect
the water rate ordinance, which action
is still pending in court.
On July IS 1885, a petition was filed
with the mayor and city council signed
by 2,OO5 taxpayers of the city of Topeka
requesting that the mayor and council
Of the city Of Topeka submit to the vo-
tiers or said city, a proposition to vote
bonds TO acquire a water works plant