The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-03-28

| municipal water plant was tempor-
arily checked Monday evening When
Member Don Brockett's ordinance to
appropriate $1,000 for the sinking of
test wells. for the purpose Of estab-
| fishing beyond doubt the best source
| of water supply. was defeated before
the city council Members Rudolph
Bryant and Waples voted against the
proposition.
| This ordinance came up for its third
reading and MIR. Brockett explained its
purpose. He declared that IL was his
purpose to fight for 70 municipal water
plant that would give adequate pro-
lection. His plan contemplated the
purchase OF the present plant. If the
city could get II at reasonable cost,
but he didn't believe this could be
done 50 long as council did nothing
more than talk.
| MI. Brockett declared that tho
franchise of the present company ex-
pired In about two years, just about
the proper time in which a new plant
could be built and equipped, and the
] first step in building such plant was
to locate an unfailng source of water
supply. He said that as long as coun-
Gil dilly-dallied around with the ques-
tlon. the present company could sit
back and smile. lie declared that
no matter what the company said.
1t had been making money and If 1t
could delay action for two years II
would have the city squarely up
against the proposition of granting a
new franchise, or submitting to what
ever purchase terms IL should die
tate.
For this reason he wanted to sink
test wells in the city parks, or on some
city property. Even though these
We're never to be used for water
works purposes. the money would be
well spent he commended. But above
all, 1t would show the water company
that the city meant business. These
statements precipitated considerable
argument. 80 tR. ni .lt.,l0l1
Members Rudolph was OF the, opin-
| ion that 81 wasn't. necessary to sink
test wells He felt that water i'm sut-
| fcient quantities could. be found in
almost any quprter of the city, and
| cited the expreasiois of any local well
driller. "All you've got to do is to
go until you GET water" is the position
| Mr.. Rudolph took. ~
| =. Mr., NAPLES was against the bond is
sue. for the reason, as ne stated, that
he couldn't see Just how after water
was struck, anyone was going to de-
termine whether It was there In spf-
hcient quantities or not Mr.. Brock
lett explained that Il could easily be
told by, the use Of a small motor pump
with meter attached. lie said that il
n well produced a given quantity OF
water in a given length of time, Il
was practically certain to contain
enough for fire purposes, as 1t wouldn'
be necessary to fight fire week
But the ordinance was killed upor
the final vote, and the road is nov
clear to some other method of meet
ing the conditions by which the peo
pie are faced I'm the matter of fir,
lighting facilities.
A resolution declaring the neces
sity for paving the alleys running
north and south between Farming an'
Mark street and east and west be
tween state and Main streets, oc
casioned considerable discussion
I Some of the property owners oppose'
the idea. and had not signed The pc
, titlon. 1t developed that II wa
sought to pave an alley between Farm
ing and Mark streets, neither OF thes
/ streets being improved. Fred l.. Car
, lhart represented those who oppose
. the Improvement and in the cours
4 | of his remarks got himself into doe
Y water by declaring that this alley ha
{ never been dedicated and accepte
by the city; that the improvement,
/ made, would be made on private pro
r perty,
0 This brought Mr. NAPLES to his fee
n with an incisive inquiry as to whethe
h as a matter of fact. Mr.. Carhart didn
q know that this alley had been in us
for more than 20 years and really wa
z city property MIR. Carhart side
n stepped by stating that II wasn't o
. file any place. NJ. l.. Paddock, on
. of the petitioners. stated that h
e would benefit greatly by the improve
I, ment bnt he didn't think 1t ought
Y be held up by one property ownC
k simply because that property own'
had no use for tie alley No actio
was taken
A remonstrance against vacatlr
"a the second alley north of Mark stre
~ between Main and Prospect street
a. was referred to the street and ALE
- committee.
A petition for n sanitary and stor
l. water sewer on Monroe street fro
IA silver street to the end of Monr'
70 was referred TO the proper commi
D. ltee, the same action being taken Wi
4 reference to a petition asking for Il
construction of a sandstone curb, al
ge that Monroe street be paved with I
nj or macadam from Silver street to Il
north end of Monroe.
wi Thu matter of further adjusting a
/" sessments on the Blaine avenue IL
is provement was taken care of In m
re ton which provided that all lots al
ne lands abutting on Blaine avenue al
adjacent thereto, between the IN
or alley north of Columbia street IN
IS ming east and west. and the first all
u west of Blaine avenue running nor
and south, be assessed for the Blai
e. avenue Improvement. The motion W
carried.
Waterworks extensions are ask