St. Johns review. (Saint Johns, Or.) 1904-current, 1909-12-17
COM M UNiCATED.
To the Citizens of St. Johns: /:

To the Citizens of St. Johns.
Regarding the leasing the streets
to the mill company to put water
tower and tank to be used as fire
protection for the company. Now
suppose that at the expiration Of
this lease the mill company would
not remove the water tank off the
street, in that case it would be up
to the city of St. Johns to move it.,
would it notl
Now then, as this tank Is con-
nected with their water system for
fire protection and the city is COM
PEELED to disconnect this water to
remove the water tank, you can see
what the liabilities are that could
follow; a fire at this time could des-
troy the mill company's property
and who would be responsible for
the lossi II would not be the insur-
ance companies, for the protection
would be disconnected and I am
sure that the mill compa ~ would
not lose it; now who wot Id be the
loser, If the city give the parties
the right to build the tank in the
street and the city knew at this time
that the company was going to
build a water tank in the street for
this purposel Now, then, what do
you think jury would decided ?
Would it decide that the mill COM
pany should lose this property. or
would it decide that the city Of St.
Johns should lose itl Now does
this not look reasonable consider
ing this great water system for fire
protection that has cost this COM
pany several thousand dollars to in
stall and the property Is insured
with this system in good working
order; now II the mill company goes
ahead and puts ups water tank on
this street without the permission
Of the city council they could be
made to remove II without the dan
ger Of being held liable for DANA
ges.
Now the only way that the city
could move this tank from the
street would be to build a new tank
and connect II with the system for
FIRE protection and then tear down
the one In the street. Now then
question may arise-where would
the council or city build itp Would
they have to build ii on another
street or would they have to pur-
chase lot to put the tank onl
Now then does II not appear that
the better way would be to not al
low the company to erect a water
tank In the street at all, aud then
we would not be compelled to ever
force them to move of the street
for this.
As for thinking that the city
could get them of easier II they had
a lease on the streets than they can
now, II the city has right to lease
the streets II Is certain that they
have the right to demand that they
be cleared Of buildings or any thing
that Is a hindrance to the use and
benefits Of the public In general.
II looks to me as II there was a
''nigger In the wood pile" some
where. for II seems as though any
sane man would see where this Is
liable to lead to II this lease Is given
A. proposed.
Now II Is up to the citizens not to
allow this to be done as proposed
and / hope that the authorities will
the leasing proposition and
not lease II at all for any improve
ments that Is Of permanent ma
.ure such as this tank would be
when completed,
wish to state further that II
iad not complained and urged the
authorities to stop II. which they
lid, and ordered the obstruction
'emoved II would now be up. but
I has not been removed and consid-
ring the present outlook II looks
IS though II would be many years
'efore II will be removed. but we
lope that the city council will have
/ removed.
w. III. King and Others