The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1909-09-09
HERE ARE MANY GOOD
REASONS WHY THE CITY
SHOULD OWN ITS WATER PLANT
And Save Tax Payers Thousands of Dollars
Annually or Construct Many Needed
improvements With Revenue


its new main to reservoir in the city,
could lawfully purchase and use the
water pipes now distributing water in
the city, along with new pipes which
will be necessary to be laid, it being
immaterial, for distribution purposes,
whether a part of the pipes under
ground be purchased and used or pipes
above ground be bought and placed.
Certainly the first would not be a pur-
chase of the old plant in any sense. If
the Watauga Water Company will sell
its distribution pipes, they should be
purchased and every dollar they are
worth should be paid. That is all of
value it has to sell. 1t has no reservoir,
no water, no water rights, worth a
pepper-corn to the city. 1t has no
easement, no good will, after its fran
chise expires in 1910. It's term of serv-
ice was limited by its 2O-year contract
set out in its franchise.
Some one, signing himself ga Law
yer" in the Staff of the eth inst, APP
peared as the author of an article quite
curious indeed for lawyer to write, if
indeed he be lawyer, a thing one
would never suspect from the article
itself. In fact he does not class himself
among the lawyers, for he says it is
"the lawyers who are egging and work.
ing up the present ugly situation"
But ga Lawyer" declares further: "No
court is going to allow the city 10 con-
fiseate the property of the old COM
pany.r Col. Burbage talks likewise,
in his "Noten in same issue of the
Staff, about ''confscating my proper
ty;" but he is not "a Lawyer" or
may be he rs. Mr.. Webster tells us
that "eonfiscate" means ''to appro-
pirate, as penalty, to public use"
Has any one favoring ownership of the
water plant by the city intimated de-
sire to appropriate a dollars worth of
the property of the Watauga Water
Company only by paying full value
therefor, or on an agreed price? Let
the controversy be. fair and frank.
False assumption should not be indulg-
ed to mislead single voter. "a Law
yer' and Col. Burbage, if indeed he be
not ga Lawyer, talk about competing
water plants as if the Watauga Water
Company could continue to furnish
water to the people within the city, af-
ter the expiration of its franchise, in
defiance of the city. The idea is abso-
lutely insane. If one should lease the
Watauga Water Company for 20 years,
would that mean q years, or 30 years?
If franchise for 20 years duration does
not end on the date nominated in the
contract, then it would be endless in
duration eternal. Every one not ga
Lawyer" knows that such contention
is rank error. No, there will be no
competing water companies in the city.
The Watauga Water Company came
into the city on 20-year franchise
with the exclusive privilege of using
the city's streets for its water pipes
and of selling water to the people of the
city, and when its franchise ends by
limitation, unless its privilege be ex-
tended by another contract, the power
that put it in under the law will put it
out under the law. That is honest,
that is just that is law.
If the propositions to be voted on
carry, then the Watauga Water Com
pany will sell its distributing pipes to
the city at their value, or take them
up and put the streets, torn up, in as