Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-01-13
COUNCIL HOLDS
IMPORTANT SESSION
Webster Goes After the Glucose With a
Sharp Stick
GREENE WILL SAVE WATER CONSUMERS MONEY
NE WILL SAVE WATER CONSUMERS MONEY
City Tired of Petting the Gigantic Glucose Trust and Will
From Now On Cease to Coax - Webster Takes Initiative
in the Fight = Greene's Water Rate Plans Fulfilled
Some Interesting Reports Were Given

lature had never authorized nor given
the city power to do this.
ITO divert the water rents from the
purposes for which they were created
was also illegal.
"The agreement to fix a taxable value
upon the company's plant at $4,000, was
assuming a power vested in the as
SCISSOR and board of equalization, anG
would not stand for moment in court
as legal proposition. 1t was fraud
that courts in similar cases. have held
could be set aside and a new assess
ment and levy made and the taxes re-
covered thereon.
"All these agreements then being H.
legal, there is no binding force in law
to hold the city to the contract; no
reason why action may not be brought
to recover taxes on the realty, at a
fair assessment and Enthusiastically
no reason in law from preventing the
tax searchers. directed by the board
of supervisors, from getting after this
corporation and collecting the taxes
due on the thousands of dollars of per.
sonal property which has never been
returned to the assessor.
as there moral obligation on the
part of the city to live up to the con-
tract entered into in 1900? There GER
tainly would be il the Glucose Sugar
Refining Company had acted in good
faith with the city.
'"rhis council can not plead the fg-
norance or incompetency of its servants
in entering into this contract, that
they were cheated: but there are some
things, the courts say, implied in every
contract which may not be distinctly
and expressly stated One of these
things, and the principal one in this
contract is, that the Glucose Sugar Re-
filming Company should operate its
plant, otherwise the entire consider
alton to the city would have failed.
This it has not done and it is the opin-
ion of the committee that it does not
intend to do
when our disposal plant was suff1-
GENTLY completed to warrant the OPEN
ing of the company's factory, commit
tee was sent into Chicago to so in
form the company and ascertain, If
possible, what it's purposes We're, show
ing thereby its friendship and good
faith on it's part. This committee was
assured that only two obstacles stood
in the way of starting the plant, viz:
The sufficiency of the sewage dis
posal plant to take care of the sewage
and protecting the company from pros
ecution;' and, "a crop in Iowa to enable
them to secure sufficient supply of
corn
ITO ascertain these facts the COM
pany promised to send it's manager
to Marshalltown to meet the city coun-
Gil and the engineer to investigate the
first proposition. This it failed to do,
not even having the courtesy to an
swer an inquiry as to why 1t had
failed. AT this meeting it also denied
the charge that 1t, was .dismantling
the plant of it's best machinery with
ia view of abandoning It, 1t has come
to the knowledge of this committee
that this charge was true, so far as
removing such machinery, and during
the past few days some OF the best
machinery in the factory has been re-
moved and shipped to other points and
we understand this is to be continued.
The lateness of the season also pre-
cludes airy idea of the intention on the
part of the company to operate the
plant this year.
If, then, there ever was a moral duty
fastened upon the city council. to rec
ognize and carry out this contract, the
recent action of the company, as stated
above, has removed this obligation
There is another view, legal one,
involved in this contract not so easily
disposed Of and yet fully justifying
an action on our part.
Can the Glucose Sugar Refining
Company recover the balance OF the
$4,000, not yet refunded, (the balance
being .$1S,000) should the city refuse to
live up to its part of the contract? Can
it demand the recovery of forfeiture of
the disposal plant as the contract pro-
vides?
AS to the first question your COM
mittee believes that the loan Of $4,000
was debt, created as any other debt
against the city may be. If this sum
then, or any part of it, was in excess of
the constitutional limit of indebted
ness, when created, that amount, or the
excess, is void.
At this time our taxable property
assessed was $1.651,610. The constitu-
tional limit of Indebtedness was there
fore, $S2,580.50. We then had debt of
$1,000, which would leave but little
over $1,000, or an excess of our con-
stitutional limit of $4,000, which
amount is unquestionably void.
If it be true that the company can
demand the forfeiture of the disposal
plant the committee believes that no
court of equity would permit this With
out giving the city its pro rata interest
in the plant. or all that interest in ex-
cess of what the company put into it.
I'VE believe the time, has arrived
when petting and coaxing this gigantic
trust company to remain in our city
with it as we have found it to be, I'M
worthy OF confidence, unprofitable as
an investment, and seek to recover our
own from them in every possible legal
way. standing strictly upon our legal
rights and taking every advantage
therein. If this course should drive
the company from our city, let it he SO.
1t is better that the place now occupied
In the heart of our manufacturing dis
.trict, be vacant, than the present dark
ened walls and smokeless stacks, a
monument of failure, folly and fraud.
your committee would recommend
that the judiciary committee be in
structed to employ additional counsel,
to assist our city solicitor in any legal
prosecution or defense for the city's
rights, as indicated above, and that this