The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-08-09
MORE WATER, LESS Law.


The city of Topeka, in special local
election contest, held years ago, de-
cided emphaticaily that it wished to
own and run the waterworks. In the
winters and summers which have passed
since, during which our lawyers have
vainly endeavored to drive the company
out of town and buy the works after
wards. the original question has been
somewhat lost in the shuttle. SO that in
discussing the subject every now and
then a good citizen, well-intentioned,
says: st am not in favor of the citl
owning the waterworks. If the city
should become the owner it must be
prepared to spend several hundred
Thousand dollars in extensions. Apph-
cations will be made from one end of
the city to the other, and it will take
nerve upon the part Of the councilmen
to refuse to grant applications whether
they will pay or not"
OF course, to discuss a question of this
kind is to merely thresh over old straw.
The tendency everywhere is to munic-
ipal ownership of water plants.
President Street OF the water COM
pany, when he was here the other day,
admitted that. He said: IF the city
does not purchase our plant now, I
am satisfied it viii five or ten years
hence, because cities are buying their
plants; that is the tendency and the
natural thing"
The presumption is that when the city
owns the plant it will conduct it on a
business basis. II the administration in
power does not do this new mayor and
council should be chosen.
1t is not expected that II the city owns
the plant the water mains will be ex-
tended to every nook and corner of the
city regardless of revenues. A city adj
ministration might bankrupt a town in
this manner as well as by any other.
through methods of unwarranted or
wasteful expenditures.
Where cities own the plants it is GUS
tom airy to have certain rules and regu-
lations governing the extension of the
mains. and there is no reason why this
city should not have similar rules and
regulations. The plain, simple, sensible
theory of these regulations is that
mains are not to be extended under any
circumstances unless there are sufficient
business reasons or revenues to warrant
the extensions: that is all there is to
that.
The ownership of the electric light and
of the waterworks are somewhat differ
ent propositions. There is no revenue
from electric light, it is all expense.
The entire output from the water
plant, with the exception of the city's
consumption for fire protection or other
usage, increases the revenues.
The plain question this paper is just
now discussing is the right of the peo-
pie to vote on the proposition made by
the company. The council certainly did
wrong in refusing to permit the people
to vote upon the first tangible PROPOSE
ton they have had. The lawyers have
been trying to get proposition of this
kind up for the last five years, but they
have managed to keep it down.
Now, when Mayor Parker and some
OF the other authorities have gone about
the business in a sensible way, showing
the lawyers to a certain extent in the
background, and have finally secured a
proposition which seems in the main
not unreasonable to those best in
form ed, the council must turn in and
choke off the whole business. When you
think of it, isn't 1t ridiculous?
There are some things about Presi-
dent Streets proposition which the at
torneys have declared cannot be legal
ly submitted. There is another thing,
the matter of time for starting the
plant, which should be changed-a year
is too long. If the city buys the pro-
perty it should have possession within
so days. But it must be remember that
in his proposition President Street in
vites further discussion as to details.
The main and only proposition that
need be voted upon is whether the city
wants to buy the property at the price
named. The council ought to give the
voters a chance to express themselves
on this point
The council has been furthering liti-
cation SO long at enormous expense of
the citizens that it might be lost if it
did not have the waterworks question
over which to constantly air legal at
tainments.
Bear these things in mind, as long as
we keep up this litigation and we have
had five years experience, we will pay
our own attorneys and pay the water
company's attorneys. We will pay at
least 20 per cent more for water than
we should pay and q thiekly populated
section of the city will be unprotected
from fire and get thirsty except for the
moss covered bucket which hangs in
the we'll"