The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-10-06
ANOTHER FRANCHISE. TAKE ONE


The discussion of plans to improve
the water pressure at the council
chamber last night took a surprising
turn. 1t developed that several mern-
bers of the council who have in the
past been openly. in favor of the city
ownership of the waterworks are now
opposed to the measure or appear TO
be and this in the face of the fact that
the people of Topeka have twice by an
overwhelming vote declared that the
city should take charge of the water
plant. The first time the question was
submitted in the abstract, a lump sum
was voted to either buy the plant or
to build a new one. The next time a
specific proposition was submitted
which provided that the plant should or
should not be bought for the sum of
100000. Again the people voted that
the city should acquire the plant.
In the face of these facts, the ex-
pressed views of some of the members
of the city council sound rather strange
to say the least. Is this change in SEN
timent due to the fact that the mem
bers of the council see in the water
works an opportunity to vote away
another valuable franchise which be-
longs to the citizens of Topeka.
Inc gave n 0U-yGdT gas
franchise away the other day. They
are right now considering the gift of a
3o-year electric lighting franchise. The
city council is handing out franchises
right and left. Take one!
The people of Topeka are in favor of
the city ownership of the water supply
system just as are the people Of nearly
all large municipalities, for it is some
thing that should belong to the citi-
zens. They have a right to water at the
lowest possible cost and the supply
should not be in the hands of any cor
poration whose business it is to make
money out of it. There may be a diff
ference of opinion about the best way
to secure control of a plant in Topeka
but that question was settled by the
election in which the people said that
the city council should buy the present
plant. The system was more or less
damaged by the flood and this should
be taken into consideration but it should
not be used as a pretext to defeat city
ownership, but this city should see that
the plant is put in as good condition as
it was at the time of the agreement to
purchase.
The courts have already decided that
cities can not confiscate waterworks. A
new plant could not be built by the city
without compensating the present COM
pany for their property which. would be
rendered valueless by this act. Then
why not carry out the expressed will of
the people and close up the deal with
the water company by which the city
will get the plant.
The present owners are probably sat
isf1ed to have the question drag along
unadjusted for it is money i'll their
pocket. They are paid at a high rate
thousands of dollars every month by
the citizens of Topeka and the longer
they are let alone the more they will
make. They need no extension of their
franchise so long as the city council
and city attorney spend their time
haggling over details. and doing moth
ing. President Street has already
agreed to sell the plant and has not
given any Indication that he intends to
go back on his word. On the other
hand he has shown a disposition to
treat the city with absolute fairness
but he will not lose any sleep about the
delay for it means money in the peck
cts of the members of the company.
Isn't it about time for the city costsa-
ell to stop. clubbing and carry out the
expressed will of the people as they
were elected to do?