The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-03-17
THREE WAYS OUT.
City Attorney Discusses the
Water Works Situation.
Official Statement as to What
Has Been Done.
CITY CAN BUY PLANT.
Or It May Renew the Existing
COmpany's Franchise.
Third Way Is to Make a Fight
in Courts.
CITY CAN BUY PLANT.

waterworks bond situation" said City
Attorney Charles f. Spencer today.
which reviews briefly the progress u
the negotiations up to date, and viii
serve as a. basis for the extensive dis
cussion of that question which viii take
place Just before the coming election
This statement does not purport to be
complete resume Of what has taken
place. 1t would require more space than
is in one days issue OF the State Jour
nal to do this But it covers some of
the essential points of the controversy
When asked to express an opinion as
to the chance which the waterworks
bonds have of carrying. Mr.. Spencer de-
clined to make any statement
The following is the situation as sum
married. by Mr.. Spencer.
when L came into Office in Aprn,
1901, the city attorney was under in
struetions by the mayor and council to
institute proceedings to acquire the
waterworks plant, by paying the fair
and equitable value thereof as provided
in the franchise granted to the company
in 1881. The same Instructions were also
given by the council in Office during
1901. According to the terms of this
franchise these proceedings could not be
begun until after September 5, 1901.
After this date the proceedings were at
once instituted in strict accordance with
the terms Of the franchise contract.
fOn December ., 1901, Judge Hazen
announced that he declined to act as
arbitrator i'll the matter as contemplated
i by the contract.
"A regular suit in court could have
+ been instituted to carry out the same
purpose, but such suit was not begun
Tor the following reasons:
In the first place, Mr.. Mcfarland ana
came to the conclusion and gave opin-
ions to the erect that the contract at
tempting to bind the city to buy the
plant at the fair and equitable value
/ thereof, or renew the franchise for an
ether twenty years. was not binding On
the city, and that the franchise OF the
1901
II such suit had been brought under
/ the contract the dancer was that the
1 city, having elected to proceed under ths
Ieonuact, would be held bound by it, no
matter what price might have been
| fixed, and that the water company
/ would be left free to deny It's validity
IN case the award did not suit it. More
/ over, such suit might have resulted in
/ a renewal of the franchise of the water
company in case the city did not take
the plant at the price fixed The attOI-
neys came to the conclusion that it was
best and safest for the city not to recog-
nlze the contract of 1881 as binding or
the city after September, 1901. For that
reason IN the early part of 1902 the at
! tOrneys advised the council that in their
opinion the best method of legal pro
l-cedure was the commencement of a
suit to determine what franchise rights.
II any, the water company had IN the
4 city of Topeka under the franchise
granted in 1881. Under date of April /,
1907, reported to the council fully IL
writing the Situa ton and the opinion o.
the attorneys, and the advice of the at
torneys was concuTred in by the eouncit
In the second place the reason suit
was not brought to acquire the water
plant by paying the fair and equitab BILE
value under the contract was that the
attorneys and the council were satisfied
that the price which would in all prob
q billty be fixed would be far beyond the
fair and equitable value Of the plant
In 1900 at the time the report of the
TWO appraisers was made as to the
value of the plant. the engineer repre-
Senting the water company fixed its
senting the city fixed the value at $685.
35068- At that time the water company
insisted that a third engineer be called
in to settle the difference between the
two engineers, but this offer was de-
cllned by the mayor and council.
The water company has al all times
been ready and willing to have and have
offered to have. the fair and eo11ita bIe
value of the plant determined by court
proceeding or by arbitra ton. but the
mayor and council have at all times de-
cllned to go into proceeding of this
kind, for the reason above stated. The
attorneys have concurred in the judg-
ment of the council in this matter
From some time in January, 1902
and up to September, 1902. negotiations
were pending between the mayor and
council and the water company with a
view of trying to obtain the best posi-
bic price a which the water plant could
be purchased, and these negotiations re-
suited earlV in October 1862 in tha
$500 0l0 nrNn0cIffnD x4-cz
that could be obtained. Since October.
1902 the matter has been awaiting the
circulation of petitions for a water
works bond election and the aIIing Of
the election During these negotia tons
and pending the calling of an election
legal proceedings have been suspended.
Leaving out of consideration what is
the actual value of the plant it has
been the opinion of the attorneys ana.
I think, the opinion Of nearly all the
councilmen that it was not likely that
the city would succeed in getting a ma
terlally better price for the va ter plant
than S620.0CO by any proceedings in
court or by arbitra ton where hydraulic
engineers would necessarily be called in
to determine the value of the plant and
/ that there was strong probability that
the price might be fixed at a much
higher figure than S620,00O.
1T is not my purpose here to dis
cuss the actual value of the plant
The written opinion OF S9r McFar-
! land under date Of August 80, 1902 n
addition to discussion of the ialy
questions involved. presents sornf
analysis of the figures on the value oi
the plant as reported BY the two en-
gineers. Who made the appraisement
which viii BE- Of some assistance tc
voters in passing upon the question oi
value.
THE situation as it now stands re-
solves itself into three propositions.
"First-To purchase the plant al
$500. .00O
~Second-Not to purchase the PLAN