The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1913-10-03

n s -!
8 apolo s make II
=, = Tie ct dol s.
~ n squai 81 town 6 g s. z
s. the stats ii point ~.
:isnncy ithas N edes On many q
,lal,ts. We have had moro obst elsss
5 meet than most people havs RS
ixed. We have gaugs the growth of .
lie town TO keep ahead and il has been
. difficult town q grow ahead q. Its
growth has besn beyond the dreams 8
Df the most pttiimiies tic. We have 5
made mistakes s. III people must q
coping with such ) pheno nenal growth s
Is Virginia has had. bslieve We
have made as few IS most others. At
any rate the plant IS there, expert ap-
praisers have valued il, and the citi-
zens ST Virginia wanted it. trust
they viii meet with no more obstacles@s
than we have and survive IS thorough.
~. I am sure they will"
Municipal Ownership Fight.
The active fight for Municipal Own
ership in Virginia has covered q per-
iod Of three years and is still fresh in
the minds Of nearly every Virginian.
It has made political history and many
side issue battles have added to the
flames of the main issue. Regarding
this featureSof it, R. L. Griggs made
this statement: 5:
"Griges Brothers bought a con-
trolling interest in September 1910,
with the intention of making it their
permanent business in Virginia.; it
was not bought to sell. We realized,
however, that the life Of q Utility
Company is ordinarily as long as its
customers the Pubic desire it to
be. Virginia reserved to itself the
right to buy back the plant at stated
periods and they have done so. We
did: not want to sell unless compelled
Ito as eventually there was more money
! in holding than selling and for the ad-
Iditional reason that Municipality
will invariably among prospective pur-
chasers, pay the lowest price. I will
say that without Municipal Owner
ship agitation we could have sold to
other people for a greater sum than
the City has paid us. We are not
interested in whether people believe
this or not. We sold at as advanta-
geous a price as possible-we wanted
more and couldn't get it. In negotiat-
ing, when we felt we were ertain Of
fair treatment, we were glad to re-
ciprocate and agree upon a reasonable
price. We have not enjoyed being the
unfortunate center of squabbles among
our friends believe we have been
, very fair toward the City of Virginia
and we carry no grudges against
- CnOSe WIN OSASVSO ~ "oo 6VO~ NsoA
ness to buy our properties. We have
taken from many uniformed people
. much unfair criticism and we have
retaliated very little. We are salts
fed and for the good Of Virginia wish
the Light and Water commission al
the success in the world"
= Personnel of the Company.
= At the date Of sale to the City, O
. H. Griggs was president and genera
manager of the company; R. L. Griggs
treasurer and assistant manager;
> Fred w. Buck and George w. Buck Of
Duluth, vice president and secretary
respectively.
John A. Kennedy as superintendent
, Of the Company, has had five operat.
ing men in his employ: Zigmoad
:. Kishel, assistant superintendent; E.
F. Crotteau and Frank Love, linemen;
, Emerson Mitchell, engineer and D. l.
!, johnson, engineer.
Two employees take care of the Of.
flee work under Edward Wenzel, they
!. being Helia Oberg, who has been in
, the service Of the Company seven
, years, and E. NJ. Nash.