The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-08-30
WANT NO SEWER.
Second Ward People Haven't
Given Up Fight.
They VIII Get Up Another
Remonstrance.
A MEETING is HELD.
CommitteesAppOinted to Appear
Before Council.
Mr. Mudge's Action the Cause
of Controversy.
4 MEETING is HELD.


STRANGE against the sewer, and they
say that they can get enough signers
20 beat the project regardless of the
attitude of the Santa Fe railway. There
are 10, $40, 600 square feet of land owned
by residents in the proposed district,
and about 6.50o,000 of this amount is
owned by others than the Santa Fe.
the proposed new remonstrance would
have to contain pretty nearly all of the
resident property owners. exclusive Of
the Santa F'e, to be decisive.
There was a big mass meeting of
Second ward people held at Hub" Nc
Heely'S residence, 405 Locust street,
Monday night About $50 people were
present. and the crowd was accommo-
dated on the lawn. The speakers stand
was on the side porch of the residence,
which was brightly Illuminated with
lanterns. Speeches were made by c.
X Holiday. Frank Stevens. City En-
Grfggs, H. D. McNeely, G. w. Rake
and numerous others. l. r. Disbrow
was chairman of the meeting, and NJ.
c. Mccormick was secretary.
The principal result of the meeting
was the appointment of a committee of
three, composed of Frank Stevens, H.
D. McNeely and c. Purdy, whose duty
st is to act sort of a lobby for the
sewer fight in the council. The COM
mittee will interview the various coun-
cilmen and try to persuade them to de-
feat the sewer.
Most of those at the meeting were
opposed to the sewer in any form. Some
OF them said they would oppose it until
the city water mains are extended to
a dry sewer" But the opposition is
very determined, and the feeling is
getting stronger all the time, according
TO the statement of those at the meet
ing.
This hard fight is having its effect
and it is almost certain now that the
construction of the sewer will go over
into next year. There is a very good
prospect that it will be allowed to re-
main in its present status and die of
neglect Mayor Bergundthal is said to
be rather inclined to allow the project
to wait a while. and City Engineer Nc
Cabe stated today Inat he thought the
sewer would be of very doubtful value
TO the community. Several of the coun-
cilmen are fighting the construction at
this time. and so far, the city engineer
has not been instructed by the council
to prepare plans for the big sewer.
Until the council takes further action. |
the progress of the sewer plan is block
ed If allowed to remain in its present
status. the proposed sewer will never
be built.
One of the chief points of controver- |
sy at present is. what did H. L. Nudge. |
of the Santa Fe, mean in his letter to |
C F. Menninger. chairman of the board /
of health? Did he mean that the Santa |
Fe would withdraw its name from the /
remonstrance Internationally? Or did /
he mean that the name should be with
drawn only on condition that it could |
be shown that a majority of the resi-
dent property was in favor of the sew
er? Here is what Mr.. Nudge said in
his letter:
1T now being represented to me by
yourself and the president of the
board of health that the sewer is nee
essary on account of the public health,
and also in order to take care of the
flood waters of Biddle creek and other
surface water, and that the majority
of the people are probably in favor of
It: with this representation of the case,
] am now willing to withdraw the pro-
test of the Santa Fe company with the
understanding that our interest shall
not be counted either for or against the
proposition and that the residents and
other property owners in that ward be
allowed to decide the matter without
the influence of the railway company
either way.
You may therefore arrange to erase
our signature from the protest.
H. U. NUDGE"
Apparently that means that the name
of the Santa Fe on the remonstrance
is to be erased only on condition that
the majority of the resident property,
exclusive of the Santa Fe, is in favor of
the proposed sewer. The report of the
city engineer shows conclusively that
the majority OF the resident property, |
exclusive of the Santa F'e, is opposed to
the sewer in which case it would seem
that Mr.. Nudge has really not author
|
name from the remonstrance.
The city engineers report showed
that there is total of 10,520.9 01 square
feet of property in the proposed dis
frict owned by residents. OF this total
the Santa Fe owns 4,093, $50 feet. Be
sides the Santa Fe there were 4129 1852
square feet presented the remon-
STRANGE against the sewer, leaving only
!. 307, $50 square feet. exclusive of the
Santa Fe, not represented on the re-
monstrance. Apparently this was a
clear majority of nearly 100000 square
feet against the sewer, exclusive of the
Santa Fe property, and if Mr.. Mudge's |
letter means what it seems to mean
there Is reason TO believe that the San
that they would side with the
But the city council decided |
that Mr. Nudge meant his letter to be
4 final withdrawal from the remon- |
STRANGE, and knocked out the remon- |
STRANGE accordingly. 6
City Attorney Spencer says that the ,
sity has no right to consider the ques- I
ion in the way Mr.. Nudge seems TO .
want it considered. He says that the
Santa Fe property can not be left out ,
II the count; that it must either be on !
he remOnstrance or off If it is con-
strued to be on the remOnstrance, the :
sewer is undoubtedly defeated. If tits !
lot on the -remonstrance, the Santa Re
counts on the other side. and the sewer n
an be butt if the council so orders.
Mayor Bergundthal seems to think"
aid Mr. Spencer today, that the Santa ,
&c does not want to be counted at all
n deciding whether or not the sewer
has a majority. There is
10 way we can do this. The Santa Fe
s 6 resident property owner. and it
must be counted"
City Engineer McCabe said today: TT !
S very evident from the examination J
# this remonstrance against the sewer t
hat large majority of the small pro-
,erty holders who live down there in
hat part of town do not went the sew 4
r built. That ought to be pretty Il
rrong argument against il. AS far as Il
S. uors<o--r~ xrafsva oF 4No eexxar 10 cor,- r