The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-07-16
TOO MUCH LAW.
City Council i'm a MuddIe Over
WaterWorks Case.
Must Decide Tonight What Is
to BE Done.
QUIBBLING GOES ON.
Lawyers Appear to Want to Do
Everything Over.
Try to Ignore All That Has
Been Done.
THE TIME FOR ACTION.
franchise of the Company Ex-
pires on September 2.
People Have Spoken by Voting
S44O,OOO Bonds.

Tonight the city council must take
one of three alternatives in the water
works case. These are the three lines
upon one Of which the battle with the
waterworlxs company may be fought:
First, the council may try to throw
the whole question into the district
court, as the original franchise pro-
vides shall be done.
Second, three appraisers may be ap-
pointed, one by the city. one by the
company, and one by these two, who
shall fix the value of the plant, and
terms of sale. This would be followed
by special election to decide whether
the price and terms are satisfactory to
the people of the city. The city has al
ready voted $4,000 to buy the plant or
build new one.
Third. a petition to the district court
to appoint three appraisers, who would
fix the value of the plant and terms or
sale This would be followed by pro-
ceedings like those of the second meth
Cd This plan is laid down by the act
of 1891, which repeals the act of 1888
WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE DONE
1t seems very likely that at the coun-
Gil meeting this evening. the second
method Of procedure viii be adopted.
1t is the one advocated by the attor-
neys who have studied the case care
fully. The understanding Is that all
three of the attorneys who represent
the city favor the second method.
At the meeting OF the council last
Friday night. speeches were made by
City Attorney Spencer and by G. G.
Clemens, explaining the whole situa-
ton J. D. Mcfarland, the other attor
new employed by the city, did not state
his views.
This evening, there is nothing for the
council to do but to vote on what plan
1t will follow. Mr.. Clemens, who was
planning to go to Colorado today. says
that he will stay over till tomorrow TO
see what the council does. He and Mr.
Spencer will be present at the meeting,
and probably Mr.. Mcfarland will also
attend. The meeting will likely be Sc
cret.
WHY THE SECOND METHOD is
THE FAVORITE
The principal trouble with the first
proposed plan of action is that the
council, by ordinance, bestowed upon
the district court powers which no body
but the legislature can bestoW upon it.
The original franchise, or ordinance,
says that if the city and company can
not agree upon a price then the dis
trict court shall be called upon to de-
eide the question. Apparently, it was
under this ordinance that the city ana
company appointed engineers two
years ago; an amicable effort to agree
upon a price. The effort failed. The
rest Of the ordinance is manifestly un-
constitutional.
The third plan, being the latest law
enacted on the subject, would natural
" be supposed to control, especially as
it repeals the law passed in 1888. Law
yers contend. however, that the law Of
1888 can not be repealed that the COM
pany and the city acquired contract
rights under the 1888 law, which no
legislature has the power to nullify.
Moreover, the law of 1891 seems to re-
fer exclusively to franchises for water
companies which may be granted sub
sequent to the passage Of the act, not
to existing franchises. Some lawyers,
however, think that the 1891 law will
be held good by the courts.
The second plan, which is likely to be
adopted, seems TO avoid most of the
pitfalls of the other two. The plan IS
to have the city appoint an engineer,
and the water company do the same,
each to appoint the same engineer
which determined the value of the
plant two years ago. These two engi-
neers would select a third, and the re-
port, it is thought, could be ready
within a few weeks. Then would come