The age-herald., 1897-11-19

VuHl4AaSCu tue COfdAtE OA k1C[bdA%A avenue and Nineteenth street, now known as the 'Dr. Smiths Block alt once took charge and control of the building as the agent of pr. Smith. The building was then supplied with water measured by a metec Ths first few months the water bills ranged from $30 to $40 per month. This seemed a very
 heavy tax for water, so I had the mat ter investigated. First, I got the Water works company to test the meter. The test was satisfactory to both parties, showing that the meter was absolutely correct. Further invest 1gation showed that ths plumbing in the building was defective, and that this enormous amount of water really did pass through the pipe. I then went to work and had new plumbing put in. When this was done the bills for water, ms assured by that same correct meter, immediately dropped down to an average of less than $2 per month, including rent for ths meter. This was satisfactory, and it run on this way about two and one-half yeans. when the company. without mo- tice to me, established a minimum. rate of $3.50 per month. I saw no justice in ths arbitrary rate thus fixed by the com pany, and then the fight begun. Moth ing ithat I could say or do had any effect, and this rate was kept up for several months, when. to my surprise, the bills were sent in for $5 par month, marked
 minimum After a few months this minimum rate was raised to $S per morltll. I continued to protest, but of nos avail. After paying for several mouths at $S per month, and the com pany refusing to give the reading of the meter. I caAfd Dr. Smith's attention to the matter ard the result was a lawsuit.
 First, pr. Smith addressed a communi- cation to the city council and asked that the city take the matter in hand and see that the company should not violate it's contract with the city by establishing ar 'bitrary rates and rules. The matter was referred to the judiciary committee, which never reported it back again to the council, and there it dropped so far as the city was concerned. The suit, however, went on and resulted in de- cision by the supreme court, which went far enough to construe the contract be- tween the city and the Birmingham m Waterworl1s company. The case was referred back to the lower court for reference to show the character of the building in question, the original bill be- ing defective in this particular. The de- cision was a clear victory for Dr. Smith so far as the point over which the light was made. This decision clearly estab- lished that under this contract the water company has no right to charge for water except according to the -sched1le- of prices as laid down in the contract After this decision Dr. Smith and the company made a compromise and the case was withdrawn from the courts" $ DO you know of any particular cases wherein the water company has enforced arbitrary rules, and charged rates con- irary to the contract, as construed by the supreme court, since this decision?"
 "Yes. in a. good many instances. know that 1t has and is yet enforcing dts rule fixing a. minimum. rate on business houses and for elevators. The supreme courts decision is clear that it has no right to charge for water used other than for domestic purposes, except by measurement at rates fixed by the con- tract. For dwellings, it has no right to charge except by the number of rooms, as fixed by the contract. Notwithstand- ing this decision of the supreme court the company 1letS put III lhClCiS dt oL number of dwelling houses and it un- dertakes to say just what quantity of water shall be used during each month. If less than the maximum quantity pre- scribed is used the consumer is never shown the reading of the meter, if per chance more than the maximum quanti- ty Is used the consumer pays for it at the rates of BOG per 1000 gallons. The company has a minimum rate fixed on almost every business house and eleva- tor in the city, contrary to its contract, and in violation of law. The officers of this company have long since found out that nearly every one prefers to pay according to their unjust rules and rates rather than have a lawsuit. The sev- eral mayors and boards of aldermen de- serve the severest condemnation for neglecting to do their duty in seeing that this company does not violate its con- tract. Ordinances have been passed by the councils fixing penalties and pre- scribing punishment to the citizen who wastes water or in any way injures the property of the Waterworks company, but I have not yet heard of an ordi- nance granting the people any protection against the illegal acts of this company"
 'What Is your remedy?"
 First, would suggest that inasmuch as the Waterworks company has con- tinually violated it's contract for several years past in hundreds of cases, that 1t is the duty of the city council to annul the contract and then let the city build waterworks and give the people pure
 water at reasonable rates. There is no article of consumption so necessary to the health of a city as water pure water; and no tax or burden which so perpetually and universally affects all the people as an exorbiant or high rate of charges for the water they consume I, therefore, say that nothing will go so far toward building up our city as to give us pure water at reasonable rates. I understand that the rate for water in Atlanta and Columbus, Ga; Indianapolis and many other cities is as low as 10 cents per 1000 gallons and even less where a large quantity Is used. Shame on our city council for having recently