The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-10-25

! buying the plant. James A Troutman
who always opposes city ownership and
| admitted that he voted against it in
| both elections, was also present with q
| all of the opposition to the purchase OF
the water plant at once by the city OF
| Topeka, which made itself heard at the
meeting Monday night.
| 1t might be mentioned that Council
| men Green, Howe and Swendson, who
are in favor of buying the plant, were
also present at the meeting, but they
! did not have to make any speeches to
apologize for or explain their votes in
| favor of buying the plant.
The meeting opened with very clear
and concise statement of the history
of the waterWOrkS deal by City AttOr-
ney Charles F. Spencer.
City Attorneys Opinion.
Mr.. Spencer made it very plain that
the water company had at all times
| been willing to turn over the plant to
the city, and that the city would never
be able to get a better price from ap-
praisers than 100000; that the city
must buy the plant or the franchise
would renew itself by the city's refusal
to take the other option.
E. B. Cowgirl, editor of the Kansas
Farmer, and for many years engaged
| in the business of hydraulics ana en-
| gineering, read a paper of some length
( giving it as his opinion. that the water
works plant is now in as good shape
as it was prior to the flood, and that
at cost of $54,5 $40, the necessary i'm
| provements can be made at the plant,
and all the dry districts of the city
| covered by 4-inch mains. He esti-
mates the cost of laying 10 miles of
new mains at $4,000 The good sug-
gestion was made by Mr.. Cowgirl that
| to increase the pumping capacity of
| the plant, the present Harrison street
pumps be moved out west of town, and
a new boiler put in to furnish more
| power, which would cost very little.
G. K. Holiday said in defending his
| action as councilman: We may be
| rea ping the result of unwise action
Perhaps it would have been better to
give this company new franchise
some years ago instead of trying to
buy the plant. This club has passed
to buy the plant, and to go slow.
We have tried to do as you people di
rected in the matter. 1 think we are
paying too much for the plant. We
capable of supplying town of $4,000
people"
James A Troutman said: ''That
was the best single nights work the
council ever did when it refused to buy
the plant. The city attorney wants to
buy that plant because if he doesn't
he will be confronted with a lawsuit
he does not know how to handle
Dell Keller: I'D like to ask Mr..
Troutman whether he has ever been
in favor of city ownership?'
Mr.. Troutman: That's not mate
rial to this discussion
Mr.. Keizer: Didn't you vote
against it both times when it was up?"
Mr.. Troutman: Yes sir, I did,
W. w. Gavitt: 'Is there any man in
the room who does not believe there
is from to 10 inches of mud in all
the mains in the city? The city would
have to take up all the pipes and clean
them out, and it would cost 100000"
C. ]. Evans: There has been no
dOl11 81
works question. The people who are
against it now have always been
against it. They are simply stirring up
the old fight. If there is mud in the
pipes, it ought to be taken out, and
the only way to get it out is for the
city to take it out. If the company
takes it out the city will have to foot
the bill"
Frank Foster: lone of those reso-
lutions which the cc1z1cil passed ad-
vising the council not to buy the plant
I drew myself. It-waS right after the
Parkhurst-Davis fire, and I came up
here one night pretty thoroughly mad.
Tom Anderson and I got together and
drew up that resolution. We supposed
that the trouble was some inherent
weakness in the plant. Since then 1
find that the plant is all right as far
as it goes, and that it would cost only
a small sum to enlarge it to our needs.
| believe the plant will pay for all
the improvements within two years."
/
know anything about the condition of
this plant. One gentleman says it is
stuffed with mud. Another says it is
worthless, and a third says it is worse.
If these gentlemen were correct, Mr..
Street would not be here trying to sell
his plant. He would be glad to give
it away. If he was not making money
out of it he would say, For Gods sake,
gentlemen, take this plant off my
hands and relieve me of this awful
burden If we don't buy it for $780,
600, heaven knows what we will have
to pay. Once we get our necks in
the yoke and the water company won't
do thing to us. They won't give
us any more pressure except the pres
sure on us poor devils who have to
pay water rent
Creamery: 81 have just come here
from Kansas City. and we bought a
plant down there a while back. Then
we had to spend a lot of money on it
water than we used to. The city ought
to steer clear of city ownership
Frank Foster here introduced the
resolution recommending that the coun-
ell go ahead and buy the waterwOrkS
after investigating the title.
T. F. Doran: ''Why is Street trying
to dump this plant on the city," (Great
applause from Hughes, Holiday and
Ryder.) There isn't a man in the
house that knows the condition of the
plant and mains. Why don't you take
the advice of ]. D. Mcfarland and turn
down this purchase? You don't know
what you are doing. You need more in
formation. Before you pass any more
fool resolutions you ought to know the
facts. Why don't you get those figures
from the reports which are on file with
the United States court? That will
show you the condition of the finances"
Here VIM. Green volunteered to read
the figures, which he had copied from
the reports. 1t seemed to be consider
g TO Nv. Ia
figures show that from September 1,
1898, to September 80. 1904, the net re-
ceipts have been $260.000, an average of
s4S,371.25 net per year for the past six
wears