Saturday news. (Watertown, S.D.) 19??-19??, 1911-06-30
Contract Was Not Made With
Present Owners Of Water
. Company.
PUBLIC OPINION IS LIABLE.
Franchise Granted to Old Company
Who We're Non-residents
Must Live Up 10 Contract

Editor Saturday News }8S ii; sS i
Replying to your request 70. a state
ment as to the article appearing IN the
daily of the 9th. with reference 70 $ths
existing franchise between the CITY
end the Water Company will say that
the claim Of Mr.. Pritchard and MIR.
Luck is all new to the present sov ners
of the water plant; at the time the
contract was entered into the plant
was owned by "Watertown Water,
Light and Power Company 4 corpor-
alton whose stockholders were all ]
eastern men, in fact were the indiyid-
uals who were unfortunate enough to
have bought the bonds of the old com
pany who built the plant and. La 70
take it over on the forecloElre Of tie
trust deed securing the issie 4, tsl,,ls
The local men who represented the
company in the negotiations with the
city were Mr.. John F, Way, the then
manager and superintendent, and Hon.
John B. Hanten, who acted as iesal
representative for the old company
throughout all the negotiations. IRE
present Water Company was not in
existence and the present stoekhold lders
had not the slightest thought OF such
| a thing forming company to puf-
4 chase the water plant and no one con.
4 rected with the present company had
one cent Of interest in the old com
pans or in the water plant for iiiusitiif q
after the franchise had teeu entered
I into between the old company and the
city. When negotiations were enter
ed into between the old company ant
The present owners the nresen: fran
, chise had been entered into and one
lcf the first thing the present owner
, did, before purchasing, was to secure
Fl ON the clerk o. the city certifie'
. copy Of the present franchise, com
pare the same carefully with the rec
: ords of the city and with the same a
published in the official paper of tn
= city. Prior to that date, which wa
months after the contract had bee
? entered into, the present managemer
: know nothing of their own knowledg'
as to what occurred, but the Publ
Opinion is stating what is absolutel
untrue when it seeks to leave the N
preston that the contract was chan
al ed after it was passed. The contrac
as passed by the council on third rea
4 ing, as approved by, Hon. D. c. Thomt
- the then mayor of the city as publis
e ed in the Saturday News. the ofici
| paper of the city, as engrossed
81 length on the records of the city I
u C. X. Snyder, the then city clerk, a
le and each are letter perfect the sam
le We bought the plant and the franchi'
y az it existed months after it was ente
~ ed into between the old company al
L. the city. We have presented bills
< the city as provided in that contrac
y in every point and detail we ha'
Fe lived up to the contract; we expe
y the city to do the same. If there w
y any crooked work in the passing OF 7
franchise it is matter that de pre-
le emf owners had nothing to do with al
ie have no knowledge of.
Had even one of the present stoe
holders had any financial interest
the plant at the time the franchi
was passed the owners and manage
u icf Public Opinion would now. be und
y arrest for criminal libel
Yours.
ay WATERFOWL Waser Contrary
s. BY Lee Stoyer,