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

pany and table showing the cost of
water and light in other municipali-
ties. In all these proceedings there
was no dissenting voice, every men,
Der of the Council wishing the citi-
zens to know fully the facts 80 that
the question of municipal light and
water plant might be intelligently de-
cided. Right here we wish to- say
that accusations were made against
r. E. Patterson & Co. to the effect
that its appraisement was not fair
to the City and that its men were
Influenced by the officers of the Vir-
ginia Electric Power & Water CON-
pany. AS to the truth of these ac-
cusations we know nothing. Subse-,
Quent events show that the appraise-
1lent of r. E. Patterson & Co. was
about $4,000 lower than tue ap-
praisement of very reputable firm
of engineers who went into the mat.
ter more in detail and were paid
a big price for services rendered. 1t
is easy to accuse one of dishonesty
and trickery; it is much more diff
cult to prove the accusation and no
one but mean, mischieyous man will
so accuse another without being able
to furnish sufficient proof
After reading the report of the
Finance Committee upon the Patter-
son report, Alderman e. c. A. John
son moved that committee of citi-
zens be appointed to further investi-
gate the matter. On May 25th, 1911,
this committee was appointed and
after considering the matter for some
time and reading carefully the report
of Attorney c. o. Baldwin, reported
adversely to the acquiring of the
plants in question.
The next step taken was on the 5th
day of6eptember, 1911, when num-
ber Of citizens submitted to the Coun-
ell a proposed ordinance providing
for the creation and appointm en- IF
a special committee to investigate
and ascertain matters pertaining to
furnishing water and light to the City
of Virginia and it's inhabitants, and
defining the duties of such Commit
tee and fixing and limiting it's expen-
ditures. The men who proposed this
Ordinance left the Council no discre-
tion but named the following citi-
zens as the members of the Commit
tee: Messrs. M. A. Murphy, Conrad
Mattson, R. J. McGhee, A. N. Thomp-
son, Carl r. johnson and Ben Mila-
vetz. When this Ordinance was sub
mitted the Council had one Of two
things to do, either pass the Ordi-
nance themselves or submit it's pass
age to the voters OF the City at a
special election to be called for that
purpose. The Council on October
3rd, 1911, believing the Ordinance a
wise measure and desiring to do away
with the expense of such a special
election, gave the Ordinance it's First
Reading and passed it on to its Sec
ond Reading. DID THIS SHOW
ANY OPPOSITION TO THE IDEA
OF MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP ?
Furthermore on the same evening,
October 3rd, 1911, the Council signi-
fed their intention to submit to the
voters Of Virginia the question as to
! whether the City should acquire the
water and light plants by condemna'
tion or by purchase. Remember the
attempt to recall us is based upon
the assertion that we are opposed to
: the City's owning and conducting q
! light and water plant.
On October 10th, 1911, MESSRS
M. A. MURPHY, CONRAD MATT
SON, r. J. McGHEE, A. N. THOMP'
SON, CARL R. JOHNSON AND BEN
MILAVETZ sent to the Council {
communication approving the Coun
ellis action and withdrawing their
names from the proposed Ordinance
stating that it was unnecessary tt
pass the Ordinance, the Council hav
i ing decided to submit the question
to the voters of Virginia. The mel
named and the Council were togetheI
on the proposition, the proposed Or
dinance was indefinitely postponed
and a resolution passed by a unani
nous vote of the Council fixing No
vember 21st, 1911, as the election
day. Moreover the question submit
ted to the voters on that day wa
substantially the one suggested in
communication dated October 10th
1911, and signed by the gentleme
above named. IS THERE ANY
THING IN ALL THIS WHICH
SHOWS IN ANY WAY WHATSC
], EVER THAT ANY OF THE UNDER
SIGNED IS OPPOSED TO TIL
i C1TY'S ACQUIRING A LIGHT AN
, WATER PLANT?
}, At the special election SO hel
there we're cast 623 votes, SGT fo
and 96 against the proposition sui
mitted. Acting upon the official r.
turns of this election the Council o