Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-04-15
Mr.. JOHNSTON'S CARD.
A Reply of Mr.. C. Brooks John
ston to Charges Of Opponents.
He States His Position in Reference to Mat
ters Discussed, and Reviews the Record
ofHis Administration.
Norfolk, Va, April Is, 1900.

My attention has been called to GER
tain charges made and circulated
against me by some who are opposing
me for reelection as Mayor.
l feel that it is due to myself that
should lay before the public a plain
statement of the facts concerning these
matters.
1. 1t is charged against me that the
city of Norfolk paid the Norfolk Com
pany some $4,000 for its system of
sewerage in Atlantic City ward, and
that advocated it. 1t is implied, if not
directly stated, that l did this while
Mayor, and that there was something
improper and unjust in this payment.
The facts about this matter are that
the Norfolk Company, in the year 1891,
when 1t was arranging its plans for
the development and Improvement of
It's property at Client. appeared, by its
representative, before the Local Board
OF Improvement of Atlantic City ward,
OIL which J. was then chairman, and
stated that it recognized the fact that
the ward was in no financial condition
then To undertake any expensive i'm
provements, but that the company be-
ing DESTROYS of developing it's property
without delay. would put in a system
OF sewerage, TO be planned by the City
Engineer, so that it could be utilized
whole ward. and would advance the
money to pay for the same with the
understanding, however, that when any
part OF the ward was severed at public
expense, that portion of it put in by the
Norfolk Company should be taken by
the ward at it's cost price. This was
concurred in, and 1t was on this under
standing that the Norfolk Company
proceeded to install it's system of sew
according n hn r,la
the supervision of the City Engineer,
and on lines, both as to size of pipes
anu levels, suitable to a comprehensive
sewerage system for the whole ward.
The company built its own pump
mouse and operated its system at its
own expense until 1898, when Atlantic
city ward determined 10 extend the
system at public expense into n large
additional portion of the ward. In do
ing this. 1t never occurred to the Boa I'd
that 1t would be honest to repudia to
the understanding as To taking in the
Norfolk Company's system and paying
Tor 1t, nor did the Board consider It
unwise to avail itself of the pumphouse
and the large System belonging to that
company, as 1t furnished Il well-con-
struc;ed and available link between
the proposed public system in that part
oil the ward lying 10 the east and that
lying 10 the west OF the Client property,
nor was 1t considered just that all the
ha'ance OF the ward should be severed
at the public expense and that the Nor
folk company, which, by its expenditure
of about Sl,00O.000 in the ward. had done
more than any other influence to in
crease our revenues and to enhance the
values OF all contiguous property.
should have to pay for that portion of
the system which served it's prop
erty.
I did not consider It Just that this
should be done. I could not have been
persuaded to adopt the course which
in my Judgment would have been dis
honest, of repudiating the fair under
standing to which L had been party
seven years before.
The ward stood up to the under
standing and took the sewerage at It's
cost price. 1t should be noted, how
ever. that for seven years the ward
had been receiving increased taxes due,
in part, to this sewerage Improvement,
while Mt the same time and for the
whole period of seven years the Nor
folk Company was maintaining and op-
Grating the sewerage at its own eX-
pense, and was losing all the interest
on the cost for tho system was taken
in by the wtird at its cost price and
without interest. I did not stand alone
in my position on this matter. for, on
mass meeting of the property owners
and qualified electors of the ward. duly
advertised and very largely attended,
by which this whole matter was con-
sidered and approved without a dis
senting voice subsequently. the whole
matter of this Improvement. OF which
it was well known that the purchase
OF the Norfolk Company's sewerage
was to be part was submitted to the
voters of the ward ana adopted by an
overwhelming majority.
This whole business was, however,
contaminated during the administra-
tion preceding this, and before I be-
came Mayor of the city of Norfolk.
1t was voted on twice In the Com
mon Council and once by the Select-by
the Common and Select Councils on
May 9, 1885, and again, for n technical
reason, by the Common Council on
June I. 1S9S-the vote in the Common
Council on May standing 10 ayes to {
noes. and in the Select Council IL ayes
and no, while in the Common Council.
on June T, the vote stood 81 ayes and
l excused.
Among those in the Councils at that
time voting in favor OF this payment
were such men as Hugh c. Davis. l..
W. Davis, John Baecher. Jacob Hacht,
p. +. Yeatman and ]. H. Winston In
the Common Council and w. b. Bald
win, j. *. BriggS, -. II. FREEMAN, FRED.
Greenwood. Joseph Lowenberg. John
Walters. W. L. Williams and ]. c. Car
roll, Of the Select
.. 1t is charged that am receiving
$4,000 per year from Atlantic City
Ward, while at the same time am re-
ceiving a salary as Mayor.
The facts are that I was employed on
May 0. 1898. before 7 became Mayor,
as superintendent OF the new improve
nents in this ward. required to give
$1,000 bond, and to work until all the
improvements were completed, for the
gross compensation of $500.
I have now worked nearly two years
and the improvements will not be COM