Birmingham age-herald., 1895-06-03
THE WATER QUESTION.

To the Age e-Herald:
 Please republish the following com
 munication. which was handed to the
 board of mayor and aldermen in De-
 cember 1893. CITIZEN. Letter From Joseph R. Smith, sr.
 To the Honorable Board of Mayor and | Aldermen of Birmingham. Ala Gentlemen There is no article of consumption which is so necessary to the health of a city as water pure water
 and no tax or burden so pefpetually
 and universally affects all the people of every city as an eXorbitant or high rate of charges for the water they consume
 It was this fact that your predecessors 1 in the government of the city of Bir- mingham had in view when, on July l. 1888, the Water Works company of Bir-
 mingham applied to the city authori-
 ties to obtain the franchise of laying it's
 mains and distributing pipes along our streets, and, as d condition of granting
 these, 1t was required that the company enter into the contract of that date pS which the city fathers undertook to fi%
 maximum limit upon the charges that the company was allowed to make. refer you to that contract and ask you whether it is not the duty, as well as the legal right of the city authorities, ln the interest and for the protection of each and all of the citizens and prop
 erty owners of the city, to enforce compliance with the terms of that con tract? If there has been a violation of
 the contract, if that contract not only has been, but is every day being violated by the Water Works company, ought not the city come to the rescue? A sin gle citizen, I submit. should not be left to make the fight with a wealthy and powerful corporation having many thousands of dollars at stake should not be left to make the fight for the good .l ,F lad a md
 alone. Thus far l am alone in making a fight against this corporation on what l consider violation of this contract with the city.
 The violation of contract t0 which l | refer is in the enforcement of an arbi- | trary rule established by the water com. l pany in furnishing its patrons measured | water. The rule to which l refer Is what the company calls minimum | rate rule" and in order to illustrate and 1 explain to you the full meaning of this minimum rate business and the ln- | justice done I will now recite a single | case, as follows About March l. 1887. | purchased the corner of Second avenue | and Nineteenth street, now known as l~"Dr Smiths block" This building was | supplied with water measured through | meter. The first few months of my 1 ownership the water cost me about $50 l per month. This seemed a very heavy l tax for water so l had the matter inVesr | tigated. First, l got the water works l company to test the meter The test | was satisfactory to both paries, showing | that the meter was absolutely correct | andA that the water passed through the | meter. l then went further with my in- | vestigation by having the plumbing in | the building examined. There l found
 the trouble. The water was being vast | ed through leaky pipes and fixtures. l l then went to an expense of several hum 1 dred dollars in tearing out all the old,
 cheap plumbing and putting in first | class work. When this was done my bills for water, measured through that 1 same correct meter, immediately l dropped down to an average of less than
 $2 per month, including rent for the me l ter. This was satisfactory to me and 1 it ran on this way for about two and
 half years, when the company, without | notice to me, established a minimum l rate" of $3.50 per month.
 Of course a fixture would occasionally | leak and go unnoticed for a while l and then the use of water would be more,
 and when the next bill came in it was for l more money. After the rate had stood | at $3.50 for four months, without notice
 to me, the bills were sent in for $5 per 1 month. Ii ran on at this rate for five | months when, without giving me any
 notice. they put the minimum rate" up l to $8 per month. Up to this time 1 made l no fight on the question, but now the 1 rate having reached an amount which was so very much more than what l l considered just, 1 protested against pay 1 ing it. Protesting did no good, so I l finally refused to pay, except for the l amount of water used as per meter | measurement, together with the meter | rent. They refused to accept payment l and gave notice that they would cut the | water off from my building. I then em- | ployed lawyers and threatened an in l Junction suit The result was an agree ment between lawyers for the company l to bring a suit for water used and there A | by test their legal right to enforce this
 minimum rate rule. This agreement was l made in July, 1891. The case has not | yet reached the court. Thus you see I am making this fight single-handed and 1 alone. Can 1 not get you to join me? | It certainly is a public question: which concerns great many of our people | At the time it was commenced MT. Lane | was mayor and my attorneys called on | him for advice. He looked into the mat l ter and after talking with MT. London | the company's attorney. reported to me | that 1t had been agreed that the com | pany had no such right, and that I | would have the privilege of paying by | meter measurement If such was the 1 agreement it was never carried out. for the company continued to render bills | at the minimum rate of $8 per month, l and refused to accept payment other | wise.
 For further information on the subject | I attach hereto a copy of the statement 1 rendered by the company, at my re- | quest, for water used by meter nleasure- | ment also bill for the same time (twen- | ty-nine months) at the minimum rate of | $S per month. The bill by measurement amounted to $518S. including meter rent and the bill by minimum rate amounted to s232, making a difference of s1S0.12 For your information I will state that the charges by measurement are made at
 30 cents per 1000 gallons, which is the maximum charge allowed under their