Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1905-08-09
DR.. Hartwig's Retraction
Continued From First Paye.)

(OOuIIllutu FIOul F1fSL PdSo.)
the amendments to be made to the said
bill satisfied the members of the legisa-
ture that said city officers were favora-
BILE to the said bill as amended.
By thesel provisions in the bill the
Watertown Electric Co. had made it's
peace with the city of Watertown, as
such, but the individual prop
erty owners who had petition
ed the common council were turned away
without relief and, still unprotected, and
their only remedy was to prove" to the
Legislature that they would be subjected
to recoverable loss by the raising of
the dam, and get their relief there.
appeared at Madison, with other cit
liens Of WatertOWn, to oppose the pas
sage of said bill largely on account of
the loss of individual property owners
1t was my conviction also, that the city
of WatertOWn had not been fully pro-
tected by the provisions inserted in the
bill, among other reasons because the
damage in case of raising the level of
the water above the dam wOnld include
the loss in taxable value of large area
of LAND within the limits of the city of
WatertOwn, that would be submerged il
the level of said dam were raised three
feet as prOsOsed by the bill, and such
damage was in no way covered nor pro-
vided for by said bill, and the city would
annually lose in taxes large amount Of
money.
In opposing this bill the great difficult
ty which we had to encounter was the
resolution adopted by the common conn
Gil March IA, 1905, and approved ana
signed by the mayor, which was en-
bodied in substance in the bill; and
was questioned as to what right | as a
member of the city council had to op-
pose this bill when the mayor favored it.,
and the council had adopted the resolu-
ton providing for the $500 to be paid to
the city, and other conditions to be full
filled that were provided in the bill. |
found the influence of the city all on the
side of the WatertOwn Electric Co., and
that it was generally regarded that the
Watertown Electric Co. had bought its
peace with the city by the amendments
to the bill. My answer was that the
provisions inserted in the bill for the
benefit of the city of WatertOwn, were in
no way the relief asked for by the indi-
vidual property owners whose properties
would be taken by the raising Of the
Jam.
In anything that said at the meeting
OF the common council Oh June 20, with
respect to said matter | meant only to
say that the resolution providing for the
payment of the $500 to the city of Wa
tertOwn had placed the city and it's Of
ficers where they could not oppose the
bill and that the Influence of the city by
virtue of said resolution was interpted
by the members of the legislature as be-
ing in favor of the bill and against the
demand of individual property owners,
and was SO used in argument by the Wa
tertown Electric Co. If anything that
said at that time or place has been in
terpreted in any other way, then the in
terpretatian was not taken for what I
intended it and for anything that have
said that was taken or understood other
or different than have stated herein, I
am willing and anxious to make correc-
ton and to make any proper amends to
the common council. [ have not intend
ed nor have [ consciously made any
statements derOgatory Of the common
council nor in any manner rejecting up
on it's honesty, integrity nor good char
acter. have no apology to make for
my opposition to bill No. 1885, know
it's defeat was generally desired by my
constituency. My attitude on the reso-
luton on March 14th is and has been on
account of it's being used to line the city
on the side of the Watertown Electric
Co. in it's effort to raise it's dam against
the demands Of the individuals of this
CITY that it be reflected as it is.
Respectfully submitted,
A. H. Hartwig.
Dated August l, 1905.
First Publication July 18th, 1905.