The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-04-16
Says Newspaper Talk Lately Is
All BOSh.
MILLER CALLS 1T POLITICS
Thinks Effort Is Made to Criti-
else Water Officials.
Consumers VIII Have to Pay
for Meters as Usual.

| SumerS in Topeka that there is abSO-
| lutely nothing to the reports in a To
| peka newspaper to the effect that il
| isn't necessary to pay for a water
| meter on account of supreme court
! decision from Idaho, w. c. Ralston
city attorney, gives out an Official
| righteousness of the newspaper
arguments and backing his proofs
| with a copy of an opinion from the
| supreme court of the United States.
In addition to the city attorneys
legal documents, H. P. Miller, city
| commissioner of waterworks, gives
out a scathing interview. charging the
newspaper with politics and an at
tempt to bring trouble on the heads
| of the city water department.
The trouble is this: 1t was reported
that a supreme court decision made ii
necessary for water companies to in
stall meters and services. The city
recently ordered out all flat rates in
the city and required the consumers
to use meters. Meters cost eight dol
lars each. The supreme court de-
cison was twisted and carved and
shaved until it was made to fit the
Topeka case. This would mean saw
ing of eight dollars to consumers or
property owners and they held back
on having meters placed in their
houses. The city ordinance says all
flat rates must be abolished by the
first of May. In holding back their
it impossible for the city to make the
change in the short time allowed.
Commissioner MiIIer's Charge.
Here is what Commissioner Miller
has to say about it:
There was absolutely no authority
in which to base the article published
by the morning paper and its purpose
must be evident to all fair minded
people. 1t has caused hundreds of our
consumers to delay metering their
services and as it will be impossible
under the circumstances to place all
meters yet needed to comply with the
ordinance, many of our consumers
will be without water after May If
the provisions of the ordinance are
strictly lived up to- That, of course,
would mean a feeling of resentment
and reflect upon the officials in charge
of the water department. Thus the
intent of the article should be clear to
every one.
"The board of commissioners passed
the ordinance requiring metering of all
services by unanimous vote. It is not
an arbitrary rule of the water com
missioner He has tried honestly to
enforce the rules and laws governing
his department without discrimination
and firmly believes that the meter Sys-
tenn is the only equitable way to dis
tribute water to the consumers. It
means fairness to all and protection
to citizens in case the supply of water
is low on account of drouth.
AS TO the charge Oh 80 IOT the
meter, the state law governs that, and
I sincerely hope that the public will
realize that the management of the
water department is doing what the
laws require them to do and not pay
any attention to the Sickening efforts
of a newspaper to dish up the fimsiest
kind of campaign material a year
ahead of time"
Opinion by City Attorney RalstOn.
w. c. Ralston, city attorney, made
the statement following:
I'm the case of Consumers Company
VS.. Albert L. Hatch, decided by the
supreme court of the United States on
April 1, 1912, the court simply held
therein giving it jurisdiction and that
consequently the decision of the SUI
preme court of Idaho would stand as
the law of the case.
In the above case the Consumers
company was operating a system OIL
waterworks in Occur d'Alene, Idaho,
under a franchise from said city. The
water rates charged by the company
had been fixed by the water commits
SiOnerS as required by the Idaho stat
utes. A rule of the water company
required consumers to pay for water
monthly in advance. Albert l.. Hatch
rendered the monthly water rate but
refused to pay for making connections.
The water company declined to make
the connections Hatch then COM
menced an action Tor a witt OF nan0a-
mus to compel the water company to
make the connections. The supreme
court of Idaho granted the writ. The
water company appealed to the United
States supreme court with the result
above stated
The point decided in the case was
that the rule and regulation of the
water company requiring the con-
sumner to pay for laterals and connec-
tions from its main to the street line
of the consumers property is unrea
sonable and in conflict with the stat
ute, charter and franchise under which
the defendant is operating, and such
regulation can not be upheld by the
court
This same point has been passed
upon several times by the Idaho SUI
prelne court. 1t was first decided in the
year 1900, when that court held that
under the Idaho statute the water COM
pany must pay for making conneC-
tions with its mains and for service
pipes laid in the streets up to the pro-
perty line of the consumer.
This case has no application to the
waterworks' situation in Topeka, as the
statute governing our city provides
that all meters and lateral service
pipes shall be put in at the expense
of the consumer
mo question relating to water
meters was involved in the case"