The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-08-07
LITIGATION ALWAYS

The city council did a stupid thing
last evening in refusing to submit to .
vote of the people the water companyb
proposition to sell the plant for $500, OO0;
including $4,000 worth of new boilers.
extensions to Washburn college, other
mains, etc. Had Councilman Burgen-
thai been present It is likely that the
resolutions to- continue the endless liti-
cation would not have been adopted as
he il known to be opposed to this USE
less business.
The councilman must bear the respon-
sibiltty for summarily thrusting this
city again into wasteful litigation. the
maintenance of high water rates and
the deprivation Of water to the people
Of Martin & Dennis addition and some
other localities. unless their action IN
reconsidered at q meeting Of the council
next week.
To those conversant with the subject.
the waterworks company's proposition
seems reasonable one Mayor Parker
thinks 1t Is. and he Is q good business
man. City Attorney Spencer stated that
he thought no board OF appraisers would
be likely to agree upon valuation be-
low $500, 900. The council need not even
have assumed any responsibility, only
that or granting the people chance
to vote ON the price. Topeka has ex-
pressed itself favorable to municipal
ownership, although there Is q respect
able minority which would prefer to see
the works continued in private hands.
There can be no valid objection. how
ever, to letting the people say whether
or not they are willing to pay $685. 900
for this property. If they don't want to
buy, they can reject 1t.
There will be no new water plant con.
structed.
The expense would be too great to in
dividual consumers in making connec-
tions and to the city in tearing up its
pavements. Experiments show that the
old water pipes are in better condition
than new ones would be. The present
company has fine pumping station
and furnishes water equally as good
as can be obtained, and it will continue
in business in some form. That can be
depended upon.
Lawyers disagree, but this city has a
contract with the present company to
either buy it's plant at reasonable
sum or permit the company to do busi-
ness here. For the last Ave years the
city has been unable to assail this posi-
ton. despite thousands of dollars spent
in litigation and more thousands spent
in high rates.
Last nights instructions to the coun-
Gil to fight mean no reductionss no
extensions to the dry districts and fur
Their SUSPENSE and discussion over the
same old questions: $500. 600 is the av-
erage value agreed upon by the two
appraisers several years since. One OF
these appraisers was employed by the
city and the other by the company and
the company finally wisely agreed to
take the average Of the two.
1t is difficult to understand what the
council is trying to do. If we pursue
litigation we are no further along now
than we were five years ago and maybe
no further i've years hence. AT the end
of the litigation we will simply be COM
PEELED by the courts to accept the val
uation put upon the plant by appraisers
and let the people vote on the price. We
know now about what that appraise-
ment will be.
Is this city run for the benefit Of the
lawyers or the public at large