The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-01-02
VALUE $332,OOO.
Engineer HinckIey Places Esti-
mate on WaterW0rks Plant.
What 1t Would Cost to Replace
the System.
GARBAGE QUESTION.
1t Is Again disposed of by the
City Council.
Experiments With Incarceration
Have Been Satisfactory.
GARBAGE QUESTION.

Notwithstanding the fact that yester-
day was New Years the city council
met last evening as usual, but the ses-
sion was the shortest one held for
months, and no discussions of conse-
quence were INDUCED in. The usual
ordinance appropriating money for the
payment of the city's employees was
passed, and all business was completed
by $3.50 o'clock, as most of the coun-
cllnen wished to go elsewhere.
The principal action taken was the
disposition and the passage of another
garbage ordinance At present the Gre
matory company is disposing of the
garbage under a temporary contract.
The new city ordinance will give the
contract TO the crematory company per-
manently unless some one wants to
erect another crematory and enter into
competition with 1t.
Under the new ordinance all persons
Who make a business of disposing of
garbage must pay the city a license of
$50 a year No contract to dispose of
garbage can be given to any person
who does not either own a. crerna tory
himself or have a contract with a Gre
matory company to dispose of the gar
bage. The object of this provision is
to compel dead animals and other
things which would be injurious to the
health of a community, to be burned
instead of buried. Compost is excepted
from the provisions OF the ordinance in
order to allow city people TO dispose of
their stable refuse to farmers and gard
eners for fertilizing purposes. The city
contract viii be let to bids from those
who are in a position to comply with
the provisions of the ordinance.
Councilman Warner voted against the
ordinance because, he said, it would
give one company a. monopoly on the
business at present.
City Engineer Wise filed a report
which had been submitted to him by
h. V. Hinckley, regarding the value of
the Topeka Water Works plant Mr.
Hinckley was employed by the city
council during the last administration
to go over the entire list of properties
of the plant, make a schedule of them,
and report their values to the council
For this service he was to receive one
half of one per cent of the value of
the plant. He has thus far received
$500 on his contract and some time ago
he put in a bill for $500 more, which
the council refused to allow until they
saw what sort OF a report was to be
made.
While Mr.. Barnes was city engineer
Mr.. Hinckley made his report a little
at time in order to give Mr.. Barnes
time to thoroughly examine it, In a
letter to Mr.. Wise, Mr. Hinckley ex-
plains that it was not the intention to
file the report complete until the water
works suits were decided so that the
findings of the court as to values could
be included, and then a complete sum-
mary made.
Mr.. Wise submitted all of these re-
ports, together with letters from Mr.
Hincl1ley in explanation of the matter
The report is a bulky document, made
up of a large number of sales and blue
prints Among the letters submitted
was one written from Muskogee, Indian
Territory, where Mr.. Hinckley is at
present employed in engineering work,
in which he said:
1.-THE Merchants National bank ad-
vises me that my 5000 for November
was turned down-by the council, pre-
sumo, as you said you would approve it.
This leads me to inquire, Where am I
at2' Under contract of March 90 am
to do wnate yer the city engineer in
structs me to do on the waterworks
valuation, etc. For determining the
value of the present plant, one-haIf of
l per cent was to be mine. VIII you
furnish me statistics of income and
expenses. so can complete the
valuation of the water companys plant j.?
VIII a voucher then be entertained for
One-half of per cent of the value
thereof in accordance with contract ?