The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-03-15
Tardy Talk About Beginning
Condemnation Proceedings.
TIRED OF WAITING.
Question Has Been Tossed
Around For Two Years.
No Progress Whatever Has Yet
Been Made.
Attorney Austin Tells Commit
tee What Can Be Done.

The 1vaterworks committee held
meeting last night and decided to ir-
troduced a resolution in thecity council at
next meeting instructing the city atfor-
ney TO begin condemnation proceedings
against the water company in the state
court Besides the committee, which Is
composed of j.. ". F. Hughes,J- :. Wa
uer ana w. It. CLANCY. there were pres
ent Mayor Drew. City Attorney BIRD,
Charles F. Spencer. c. J. Evans and Ed
win A Austin The last two are men,
bers Of the committee appointed by tne
Commercial club TO consult with tie
city attorney and water committee of
the council in regard TO the water'worlSs
question. This committee was appOin--
ed several months ago. but the water
committee of the council seems 70 have
lost all interest in the water question
as they have done absolutely nothing
Tor the past three months. The cause
Of the sudden activity is very evident,
hut the tax payers OF the city WOHlu
have appreciated it if the committee ha0
attended to the business when II should
have done So
Waterworlzs question was gone over. Mr..
Austin said that the committee had
probably made a mistake in calling for
his views because he had not been en-
dorsed by the law and order league He WIS
Of the opinion that the city had the right
10 begin proceedings to acquire the planr
a any time. but that in fixing the vaiu-
alton il would be necessary to include
the unexpired portion of the franchise.
He thought that the place to begin was
in the state court and that the case
could not be removed to the federal
court except on appeal He also ralS=d
the point that the ordinance granting
the original franchise did not carry an
obligation to renew the franchise for thu
reason that the council Of 1881 could not
bind later council i'm a matter Of leg
islatiOn- He considered the provision re-
garding the purchasing Of the plant Y
gal as that was in the nature of a coa-
tract. He said that as the plant was
now IN the hands Of a receiver appointed
by the federal court. it would be neccS-
sary to go into that court and get an or
der permitting suit to be commenced
against the receiver or to have the pro-
perty discharged from his custody.
All the attorneys agreed that the ac-
1ion already taken by the council would
not prevent any action which might now
he taken. They also agreed that the
bonds which have been voted by the city
may be issued for the purpose of buying
now and that another election for the
purpose of voting bonds was unneces-
sary.
Mayor Drew and City Attorney Bird
were not opposed to the action suggesE-
ed by Mr. Hughes. They have but a few
weeks to serve but they insisted on some
steps being taken.
HISTORY OF THE QUESTION.
Tbs waterworzs question has been
sfeld up by dilatory action on the part
of the water company and the water
committee OF the council. In fact but
Jew members seem to take any interest
fin it. or If they do they have been very
careful not to allow their interest to crop
out in council meetings Last sprirg
Mayor Drew succeeded in getting the
water committee to move and. after a
lot Of correspondence and visit from
of fnr
pany, they agreed that two engineers he
appointed one by the council and one
hy the water company. to estimate the
value of the plant This was done a I'D
The water company engineer placed a
valuation Of 100000 more on the plant
1han did the engineer for the city. his
figures being about $3.50 Since that
time nothing has been done until the
meeting was called last night
Delay has been the policy of the wa
ter company and that is the tactics that
viii now be pursued II the question is
not settled by September 16. at which
time the 20 year franchise expires the
city viii be at the mercy Of the water
company for another 20 years or will be
tangled in numerous law suits
I'm speaking cf the matter yesterday.
Mayor Drew said. We have done ev-
erything we can and have taken all the
precautions suggested by the LAWYERS in
regard to our actions. We have gone TO
a great deal of expense and have had
the plant valued twice Both the esti-
mates for the city are nearly the same
by the engineers we employed. We know
y ha- the value Of the plant is just as
we'll as does the water company. We
have voted bonds and are now in shape
TO go ahead The company practices ev-
cry device to delay action. and they have
been successful. I think that the thing
to do is to 70 ahead and commences
building a plant of our own. That is
the quickest way to get what we want
The company would probably begin St.it
against the city. but il will do that in
any event and the sooner we get into the
courts and get the matter settled the
better it will be for the city. There is no
rse going into the courts on minor mar
ters. 1t viii be better to force the MAR,
question and stay by it.
Ever since the city asked the water
company to extend its plant over The
dry district six years ago we have Laen
having trouble and expense and we have
gained nothing They have not lived up
TO their franchise and i do not see why
ii can not be forfeited at any time 1t
viii result in a law suit whatever we do
and L would like to see the issue forced
on the company There is now but one
suit between the company and the city
and that is the injunction proceedings
which were brought by the water COM
pany to stop the enforcement of the or
dinance fixing the rates to be charged
by the company.
The water company has refused to do
anything that the council has asked and
Il think further meetings and corresp0n-
dence with the company VIII be useless
and viii result in good for the company
alone"
one OF the provisions in the contract
with the company is that they should