The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-10-19

| Continued from F1rSt Page.)
want to be able to come to the city
and see that we get it.. We want water
for fire protection; water to wash our
| streets; water for the rich and poor
alike. The price may seem high, but 1
question whether the plant could be
| duplicated for that price now"
Mr. DeVlin asked President Street
what per cent the water plant would
pay on an investmeEt of 100000. Presi-
dent Street replied that. it would be
difficult to make an estimate. but he
would say not less than or 612 per
cent.
If it would pay per cent" said
Mr.. DeVl1n, lit would be the biggest
thing the city ever got hold Of
William Green said: I'VE must do
one of three things; buy the plant
continue the company's franchise, or
plunge into litigation. If we refuse to
| buy, the company will claim that its
franchise is renewed, and we will have
If we don't like the service, we will
| have to go into court about it. l don't
think the plant is expensive. A week
ago one of the greatest hydraulic ex-
| Topeka, and he made an examination
of this plant. He is a man who was re-
| Gently paid fee of $1,000 for apprals-
ing water plant. He told me that
that the plant is cheap. In the last
! two days, six prominent business men
have come to me and told me to buy
! the plant; and all six of these men
were opposed to buying the plant ten
days ago"
j. D. Norton said: II indorse all that
Mr.. Devlin has said. We want the water
| works
Jonathan Thomas: We want city own
! ership of waterworks. We want IRE pro-
| j. 3. Billiard: Il have been in favor of
city ownership a but have feared ais we we're
! what have heard here tonight, however,
1 would hesitate to advise this council TO
reject the plant. 1 am opposed to grant
| ing the company new FRANCHISE un1er
any terms it would be likely to 9cGeptM Nc
the city continues It's litigation with the
water company, to state Whetner re
| fusal to take the plant would act as re-
newal of the company's present franchise.
THE council had no power to make
such a contract it did in 1881, and the
franchise is void
Charles Blood Smith. attorney for the
Water company, was called on and said
he expressed exactly the opposite view.
The council did not need to seek any fur
Their to find the material for its 1mpend-
ing lawsuit.
ward. said: The people did not know
the true condition of the plant when they
they were signing when they called for
that election. 1 don't believe that If the
PASS / consider that the Instructions
given to my predecessor do not bind me.
cally all opposed to buying the plant, and
shall vote for what my constituents
want
Joseph Griley of the Second ward: The
people l represent don't want the plant.
have made extensive Investigations and
can't find man in favor OF buying the
plant down in my ward.
c. K Holiday of the Second ward: Il
don't believe in buying the plant for $780,,
600. We don't want such bonded debt.
If the present owner, Mr.. Street, would
come out here and ask US for new
franchise and would agree to give US
proper concessions, we would grant it, hut
If We tackle city ownership we will have
something to bother us all the rest of
our days"
S. A. Swendson, Sixth ward: The ques-
ton of city ownership was submitted to
a majority of all the taxpayers of The
city, whereas only two-fifths were neces-
sary. The bonds were voted by a large
majority. The question of municipal own
ership was settled at that time No ar
gument can be advanced now for opposing
that action
Ed Schmidt, a Second ward citizen.
made strong speech on behalf OF Second
ward citizens, urging the council to pur-
chase the plant for $500. 900. He said:
The people have studied this question. |
the laboring men of this town to petition |
the council asking for city ownership"
There was large crowd of people in |
the council IN enan6er Teprestenting all
and not a single speech was made against |
the purchase of the plant. But the coun- |
cilmen seemed to have made up their |
minds, and the eight members put down !
their heads in football style and ''bucked |
in against the overwhelming sentiment /
in Topeka in favor of city ownership.
The vote was by roll call on the resolu-
ton and it stood follows:
For-Green, Nel1iS, Howe and SwendSon. |
Against-Kutz, Ryder, Griley, Holiday, |
Neil, Rice, Sinner, Hughes.