The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-09-09
CITY IN A POCKET
Forced to Use the Luten Bridge
Plans Says Tandy.
Must Pay the Royalty or Stand
Lawsuit.

A statement from w. L. Porter, city
commissioner of parks, that the city
of Topeka is paying enough money in
royalties on bridge patents to Daniel
B. Luten, of Indianapolis, Ind, to
build public comfort station, could
the royalties be eliminated, meets with
no hearty response from w. G. Tandy,
city commissioner of streets.
For the use of the Luten patents in
the construction of the bridge over
Shunganunga creek now being built,
and another over the same creek on
Lincoln street. the city this year will
pay Luten $2,500.S5. Two more
bridges will be built next year. If
they are of the Luten type 10 per cent
of the cost must be paid to Luten.
1.-The city commission entered into
contract to pay Luten 10 per cent of
the cost of the two bridges. 1t was
all done openly and above board,
Porter voted in favor of it. Now that
the thing is DONE this is not the time
tract" said Tandy.
In this Porter agrees, but he thinks
more consideration should be given
the matter when the city has other
bridges to build in the future.
Discussing the Luten patents and
the city's part in deciding upon
bridge of the Luten type, Tandy said:
"A great many people have it in for
any person who is making either easy
money or who has a great deal of
money. Luten is making easy money,
but that does not make any difference
as to whether or not he is delivering
the goods AS a matter of fact Luten
simply has everybody else skinned in
the matter of building bridges. The
city can build a bridge of the Luten
type and pay the 10 per cent royalty
and still get a better bridge and at
less cost than bridge of. any other
type.
City Is Helpless.
1T is none of our business whether
Luten patents should have been is
sued or not. The fact, we as CITY Of
these patents and any attempt to build
a bridge Infringing on these patents
would involve US in a lawsuit.
I notice some fellow named
Hawkes., up in the attorney generals
office, is making big sp1urge about
what he is going to do to the bridge
companies. But when he gets through
he will find the bridge companies do
ing business just as they do it now
and in the same way In the meal
time he may get some good advertis-
ing out of it. Quite while back there
was a lot of talk in the same office
about what the state of Kansas was
going to do to the Luten patents, but
you notice the state of Kansas hasn't
got anywhere yet.
IF these patents are to be knocked
out the state of Kansas is better able
to do it than the city of Topeka The
state has all the machinery of the at
torney generals office. But it is my
guess that the state of Kansas will not
get anywhere in its suit. Other con-
Germs have tried it and failed.
Yes, it is true that the city ap-
proved plans for a Luten bridge, or
rather. Luten plans were accepted gby
the city, after some changes were
made. And it is true that when the
city called for bids, it could consider
proposals only for the construction of
a Luten bridge. Unlike the counties
of the state cities of the first class can
consider bids for only one set of plans
for a bridge The city must adopt one
plan only in considering bids, while a
county can receive bids for bridges
of various plans. A county can make
it's choice of plans after bids are re-
ceiyed, but a city must decide upon a
plan and then all bids must be on this
plan.''