The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-04-06
petition as favoring their present
views.
Here is the situation:
Quite Different Now.

tirely different now from what they
were at the time that petition was
circulated. You can state that am
emphatically in favor of municipal
favor of the light bonds to be voted
upon tomorrow, and am distinctly
against the Edison proposition to
furnish lights for this city. We have
light commission now and l be-
lieve it will prove a success"
M. F. Rigby: "The petition re-
ferred to in that Sunday morning ad-
vertisement was circulated about a
year ago. Conditions have changed
We have light commission now"
w. w. Mills: Something like a
year ago some one came in here with
a petition to give the Edison company
the city lighting contract. I believe
1 signed it. No sir, those are not my
sentiments at this time. l am in ia
vor of municipal ownership of the
light plant and shall vote for the
light bonds. We have light COM
mission at this time and I feel sure
that it will prove success. regard
the printing of that list of names as
favoring the Edison proposition as a
Misrepresentation of the sentiments
of the men whose names were used.
That petition referred to is now
the present time
j. D. Norton: 1.-THE Edison COM
pany's big advertisement in the morn
ing paper was vastly misleading. They
have published a list of names of per-
sons alleged to be in favor of turning
the city lighting business over to the
Edison company, and I was surprised
to find my name in the list. In look
ing further over the list, l found that
it was not a misprint, as I at first
supposed, but a clever scheme to
work in a list of names which were
given more than year ago, on an en-
tirely different proposition. Mr..
Maunsell who has been dead year,
introduced a proposition to furnish
the city lights, but the scheme did not
contemplate the loss of the plant
owned by the city. A lot of those
names were subscribed to help Maun-
sell get foothold in the city, in
hope that a second light plant would
break the existing electric monopoly.
Maunsell's scheme died with him. and
for that reason, any names signed in
his behalf, lost all significance. 1
am for municipal lighting, and would
never have lent my name to any
such scheme as the Edison company
proposes, and I believe that at least
two-thirds of the names on that list
in the Edison advertisement. were
filched from the old Maunsell list, just
as mine was"
D. ]. Hathaway said: "I may have
signed a petition in years gone by
but I am positively in favor of the,
city voting the bonds now. 1 should
also like to see the original of that
petition
Warner & Potter: Speaking for the
firm, Mr.. Potter stated that he favored
the city furnishing its own light as
long as it already owned its plant. He
declared that the Sunday morning ad
did no. reflect his present sentiments
oil Ia n anCantir0
the Edison proposition. He did not re-
member signing the petition referred
to- but If he did, 1t was a long time
ago. II know of many men whose
names are in that printed list who to
my personal knowledge now oppose the
acceptance of the Edison offer to light
this city
J. S. Warner: Our firm name is
printed. but have no knowledge of
signing it, I am emphatically for the
municipal plan and against the Edison
company proposition and will vote for
the bonds.''
A. Marburg, advertised as a signer:
THAT advertisement does not give my
sentiments. The petition they speak
of must have been circulated a long
time ago. 1 do not favor the Edison
neither do l favor the
bonds to enlarge the light plant.
want to see the plant continue just as
IL y
ded to keep it in good shape"
E. B. Guild: 81 signed that petition
a long time ago. Conditions nave
changed"
Robinson, Marshall & Co.: Mr.. Rob
inson speaking of the Edison adver-
tisement, said to the reporter today
that he had signed it a long time ago.
Over a year ago, he thought, and con-
ditions had changed materially since
that time. IF you would interview all
the men whose names appear in that
list" he said, Il believe you will find
their minds since then and their senti-
ments now are exactly the contrary
to what they are represented in that
ad. The city now has light commits
sion. 1 favor municipal ownership of
the light plant and the Improvement
of the plant to meet the demands of
the city for street lights. 1 am not
fighting the Edison company. 1t is
merely a business proposition and for
the good of the many in the long run
that the city own and operate it's own
light plant. Water and light are neces-
stiles and are better in the hands Of
the city than corporation, no matter
how good the corporation is at this
time"
DIR. L. Y Grubbs: "I am constitu-
tionally opposed to voting bonds,
though l shall give the matter serious
thought before 1 vote either way Tues
day as conditions have changed since I
signed that petition"
E. w. Hughes: II don't think 1 ever
signed any such petition as the one
referred to and am sure that I would
not if presented at this time"
A H Marshall: II may have signed
such a petition a year or so ago but
conditions have changed since then and
am in favor of the city doing it's own
lighting under the commission plan. If
the Edison company can afford to
make the reduction that they have Of
fered the city they should do some
thing for their commercial patrons"
s. NJ Crow: Il do not know how
my name came to be included in the
list published Sunday Of those opposed
to the issuance of electric light bonds.
1 did not authorize it,"
F. A. Snow: Il signed a petition a
year or so ago because lots of good
h,,eipaSs rr,an had and without giving