Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1900-02-03

ILLEGAL
Is the City's Contract
With the Akron Water
Works Company.
Councilman Paul Raises
Important Point
2t Et
Relating to Works Purchase
Question.
A Remarkably Clear Statement Of
Fact.

Editor Democrat: Considerable has
been said about the city's buying the
plant Of the Akron Water Works
company, and of the desirabiity Of
acquiring it--tbere can be no question.
Public ownership Of water works
is no experiment. 1t is now the rule
and not the exception. Experience
has amply proved such ownership to
be wise, indeed, necessary and essen
tial. The purpose Of this article is to
point out some of the difficulties to be
overcome before Akron can own and
operate its own water works plant.
The first difficulty is caused by the
fact that some one, for purpose,
got the Legislature about 1890 TO
amend the laws so as to limit the
amount to 100000 that could be ex-
pended by cities of Akron's size for
the purchase or construction of water
works. Up to that time, l think, any
sum deemed necessary and prudent
by our citizens could be expended.
Until this law is repealed, nothing
whatever can be done. 1t effectually
prevents our purchasing the present
works or building our own.
The Council has asked Messrs. Sell
Der and Seesc TO get the old conditions
restored and everything now rests
with them. l believe that they can
and will give us the relief prayed for
wish especially to call your atten-
tian to the fact that under our con
tract with the Water company we
cannot buy their works until 1904,
and that we cannot build our own
works but must buy theirs.
IL we build works we would still be
obliged to pay hydrant rental until
1914 mt the rate of thirteen thousand
or more dollars per year. The con-
tract limits the question practically
to the purchase of their plant, and by
one of its very peculiar provisions,
we will be compelled to pay price
with which they will have very much
to do with fixing. At the proper time
it can he shown, as indeed, Mr.. Fie-
beger has partially shown, that we
can afford to pny IL high pricc-t OBJ
tain them.
Rest assured that the contract pro-
yides for ali that
And now wish to call your aticn-
tion to what believe is of the utmost
importance in the matter, In 1894,
our city Commissioners and Council
undertook to make this contract with
the Water company, Without, 1 be-
lieye, submitting it to vote OF the
people, as provided for by section 2343
Of tho Ohio Statutes.
lam not lawyer and cannot say
whether this contract Is legal, but to
n layman. 1t looks Illegal. l have ask
ed the City Solicitor for an opinion.
If there is no contract we would be
complete masters of the situation and
could buy the works nj the value of
their pipes and machinery. We would
not have to consider franchise values
nor earning cdpacl'ies' All 'nere cic-
ments would enter into the question
practically, if not legally, II we buy
under the contract.
On the other hand. il the contract
is void, | would advocate buying their
works, rather than destroying their
value, but we. need not pay a cent
more than we ought to. | should be
very agreeably disappointed If the
price under the contract did not eS,
ceed this value by over one hundred
thousand dollars. The intelligent ef-
forts Of all must be bent first 10 re-
store the old law, under which mi-
nicipal ownership was accomplished