The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1912-05-10
, the People of Virginia:

To the People OF Virginia:
We, the undersigned, aldermen of
the City Of Virginia, are accused of
violating our onacial oath. We are
accused more particularly OF being
opposed to the City's acquiring. by
purchase or condemnation, the water
and light plant of the Virginia Elec-
trio Power & Water Company. We
are accused of being opposed to Mum
icipal Ownership, of being owned and
controlled by the Virginia Electric
Power & Water Company and Of pay
ing no attention whatsoever to the
demand for cheaper water and cheap
er light. Whether or not these ac-
cusations are true will be decided by
the voters of the City of Virginia on
the 2Sth day of May, 1912. There
fore we wish, as conclsely and clear
ly, as possible, to put the facts be-
fore the people of the City.
The Recall is a useful piece of po-
litical machinery. The people should
have the right to remove from Office
one who has violated his promise or
his official trust. We believe in the
principle of the Recall and are not
only willing but anxious to submit
our case to the voters of Virginia,
provided they acQuaint themselves
with the facts in the case. We are
confident that the verdict rendered
will be fair and impartial one. It
is serious matter to be recalled
from public office. 1T PUTS A BLOT
UPON THE CHARACTER OF HIM
RECALLED. TO VOTE AGAINST
A MAN RUNNING FOR OFFICE IS
ONE THING, WE NEED GIVE NO
PARTICULAR REASON FOR so DO
ING: TO VOTE TO RECALL A PUB
Lie OFFICER IS AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT THING, AND FAIR
MINDED MEN SHOULD BE ABsO-
LUTELY SURE THAT THEY HAVE
REASONS THEREFOR BEFORE
THEY BRAND A FELLOW-CIT1ZEN
AS ONE UNFAITHFUL TO A PUB
Lie TRUST. There should be no
political trickery here, no bias, no
prejudice, no Misrepresentation of
facts.
Because Of considerations such as
these we submit to you the follow
ing: On the 18th day OF February,
1911, petition, popularly known as
the 900 petition was presented to the
City Council asking that steps be
taken to have reduced the water and
light rates charged by the Virginia
Electric Power & Water Company or
to acquire the plants of said COM
pany or to build competing plants.
This petition was Immediately re-
ferred to the Finance Committee of
the Council consisting of Aldermen
A C. Osborn, A. D. Heritage and E.
C.. A. Johnson, and thus was begun
the movement for a City water and
light plant.
After some investigation the FL
nance Committee above named wrote
the Council to the effect that a proper
report could not be made without
knowing the value of the plant and
asked the Council for an appropria-
ton to enable the Committee to have
the Company's plants appraised and
a proper report made thereon. An
swering this request the Council or
the 21st day of February, 1911
passed a resolution authorizing the
Finance Committee to go ahead with
it's work and incur the expense nee
essary therefor. The Council wished
this investigation to be made ant
we're as eager to bring about a solu
ton OF the water and light question
as were any other of the citizens o.
Virginia.
Following the passage Of this res
olution the Finance Committee afte1
considering several bids to do th'
work employed r. E. Patterson &
Co. of. Duluth for $500 to make
| complete valuation Of the Company
property. On April 18th, 1911, r.
Patterson & Co. submitted to tn
Finance Committee It's report whicl
showed the following:
II. Physical value of
Water Plant 1921 10000
IL. Physical value OF
Light Plant ......... 100000
I3. Value of Real Estate 100000
IA. Extra Wire and Ex-
ira Pipe ........... 10000
Is. Value Of Franchise,
10 per cent of Values
Of Plants S........... 5O,oOO.O
Total $685. 5000
Thereupon the Finance Committe
submitted said report to the Counc
together with recommendations thu
the City at the prices named pul
chase the Light Plant but not th
Water Plant and that all further a.
tion be taken by the Council as
Whole or by q Committee of Repr,
sentative Citizens. At this point