The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-08-07
COUNCIL REFUSES
City Declines to Submit Water
COmpany's Offer
To a Vote Of the People Con-
cerned.
ENDLESS "LAWING.'
Prefer to Continue the Same
Old Methods,
Costly Losing Lawsuits, No
Water in Dry District,
And Existing High Prices In
Favored Localities.

In secret session last night the city
council refused to allow the citizens to
vote on the proposition of the Topeka
water company to sell its plant to the
city for SEQ. 900. and instructed the city
attorney to continue the litigation which
has been in vogue for five years and
which now promises to continue five
years longer with no benefit to any one
except the attorneys and the water COM
pany, and direct loss to all consumers
and citizens with no water available
The proposal of the water CON pany Is
embodied in letter from President
Street given below.
1t proposes in brief that the city
council submit the water company'S
proposition to a vote of the people, and
the further alternative that should the
proposition to purchase fail the iran
chise should be renewed, provided the
company submit a reduction in water
rates. In round numbers about 20 pea
cent. is understood to be this proposed
reduction; it, of course, provides that
the city shall pay up the back hydrant
rental, as not a dollar has been paid
thereon for over year.
The opinion of the city attorney and
his associate Mcfarland was that the
city could not accept the proposition
just as made, involving the purchase of
the plant or an extension Of the fran
chise.
1t was generally understood that the
committee from the city council had
asked President Street to submit this
alternative proposition about the extern
sion of the franchise.
The main issue. however is. shall the
city vote on buying the plant as 1t
stands today. including the completion
by October of about S25 900 worth of i'm
provements, at 100000.
Divested of all legal machinery and
verbiage, this is what the council re-
fused to do.
Following the opinion of the attor-
neys, Councilman Howe moved that the
proposition of the water company as
presented in writing be rejected Those
voting in favor of rejecting it were
Griley, Snyder, Neil Wolf Weber,
Blanch, Nichols and Howe; those OPP
posed to rejecting the offer as made
were Blossom, Swendson and Tincher.
Councilman Swen0son then moved
that the city be asked to vote upon the
simple proposition to pay $500 900 for the
plant, eliminating any proposition about
the extension of the franchise This.
however, was lost seven to four. same
as the former vote. except that Coun-
Gilman Howe voted in favor OF submit
ting the proposition.
The next motion was that the council
reaffirm its resolution passed some time
ago instructing the city attorney to at
once commence legal proceedings for
possession of the plant This motion
carried by vote OF to 5. Those voting
Snyder, Neil, Wolf, Weber and Nichols.
Those opposing were Blossom, Blanch,
Howe, SWendSOn and Tincher.
WHAT WAS PROPOSED.
The water company proposed that the
company and the city council should
. enter into contract providing,
First, that the mayor and council
shall submit proposition to the voters
to purchase the water plant for the sum
of 100000 and that if the voters shall
decide to purchase, the water company
shall by good title convey the water
plant to the city free and clear of all
iens and membranes except the S27O,-
900 first mortgage bonds to be assumed
by the city and deducted from the pur-
chase price.
Second, that if the voters decide not
to purchase at that price, the franchise
of the water company shall be renewed
or regranted, presumably for 20 years,
with the privilege on the part Of the
city to purchase the plant at stated
periods and with the specific reduction
of rates both for public and private con-
sumption and with an agreement as to
the extension of mains. Also that on
the making of such contract the city
shall at once pay past due hydrant
rentals July l. 1901. to July 1. 1902,
amounting to about $14,500. and con-
is turned over to the city in case OF
purchase
Mr.. SMITHS OPINION.
Charles Blood Smith, attorney for the
water company, when asked this n orn.
ing for an expression concerning the at
titude which the council has taken
said:
THE water company claims that the
city could have accepted its proposition
had 1t so desired without conflictins
with the law OF 1897. That law is no
retroactive It does not apply to the
terms of the original franchise which
the city granted to the company. Tha
franchise provided for its own renewal
and no subsequent law can change tina
contract
THE city can start its suits as soor
If nlRaSaS Ia fy,<
suit for ten years. and I don't know
any reason why it should not continu,
to do SOL
CITY ATTORNEYS VIEWS.
City Attorney Spencer and his asso
ciate counsel, Mr. Mcfarland, claim tina
the position of the water company i.
incorrect. that the old franchise Of th'
water company is illegal I'm so far as i
provides for its own renewal, becauss
1t conflicts with law which existed Al
that time limiting the life of franchises
to 20 years.
The city attorney said: IF the council
desires to submit to the voters a pro,
position to purchase the water plant al
certain price the same should be sub
united independently of and free from
any alternative concerning franchise re-
newal
The fact that such a proposition may
De submitted and pending need not pre-.
vent the mayor and council from con.
sloer1ng any proposition from the wa.
ter company in reference to a renewa
OF its franchise on the terms and con.
ditions thereof. And it would be to the
interest of the voters to know at tbs
time the vote on any proposition to pur-
chase what arrangements as to rates
and extension of mains can be made
with the water company in case tine
franchise should be renewed"
WATER COMPANY'S PROPOSITION
The following Is the communication
which formed the starting point for tn,
whole deliberations of the meeting las
night 1t was received Monday by Mayor
New York Aug /, 1902
Hon. Albert Parker. Mayor City of To
Seka. Kan:
Dear Sir: Az I promised you. I have