Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-02-10

complete system co-exist, viz, a system
of pipes, system of power and above
all supply of water.
But the dismembered fragment of a
system which this bill proposes to take
for Brunswick contains but one of these
three vital elements and that the least
important, viz, a system Of pipes. It
takes with 1t no power to propel power
through those pipes and no supply Of
water to be thus propelled or to reach
the consumers. A water system which
supplies no water to the consumer is
thing without earning capacity and
incapable of intelligent valuation. The
Brunswick part Of the franchise is to
be taken from the Water Company and
by the requirements of the constitution
both of this State and the United
States full compensation must be made
to the Water Company therefor, and
this has been expressly decided by the
supreme court of the United States in
Monongahela Co. VS.. u. S., 148 U. S.
312. Yet the petitioners, proposing to
take only fragment of the entire
franchise, and only a. fragment of the
entire system, have selected a frag-
ment that consists simply of system
of pipes without either water or power
"a fragment which thus crippled has
no earning capacity at all and there
fore can offer no intelligent criterion
for setting just valuation on the part
of the franchise taken. W
And yet the part thus taken, linked
together as part of the existing sys-
tenn, has most valuable earning pow
er and a most important franchise
value to the Water Company from
which it is proposed to be taken. Taken.
as whole the system, today, is capable
of a just and intelligent valuation on
definite legal principles or any laid
down by the supreme courts of this
State in the Kennebec Water District
case referred to. Shall or can this inn
portant value be taken from the Water
Company by an act of ,dismemberment
which violates every precedent of legis-
lation in this State and must either de-
prive it of valuable property and fran
chises, without compensation, or at
least deprive it of any intelligent and
definite legal rule or measure by which
just compensation can be determined.
So too with reference to the POSSIBLE
ity Of assessment of damages under
this act by reason of injury to the
water company done by the taking of
it's remaining plant in Bath not taken.
While the act provides in one part of it
that such damages, if any, may be as
sessed. it expressly provides in another
and subsequent section that no DANA
ges shall be assessed except such as
properly pertain to a taking by emf
nent domain. But are not these two
clauses directly in conflict? Is not the
vague permission given by the first
section wholly contradicted by the de-
NAL of this subsequent section? Are
not damages under eminent domain
given by the first section wholly con-
tradicted by the denial of this subse-
quent section? Are not damages UNI
der eminent domain given only for val
ue actually taken and not for value ac-
tually not taken? But apart from this
objection the permanent difficulty still
confronts us. by what definite legal
rule can that element of compensation
be measured so that the damages fin
ally to be awarded under this provision
shall be equally just to both? It needs
no argument to show that as to all
these elements Of value Just compensa-
ton. just to the Water Company as
well as to the town can never be
reached except by definite legal rules
and principles. The blind jumping at
results by appraisers, the arbitrary
chalking of figures upon paper, can
never meet the requirements of the
constitution, of the requirements of
justice, but all such results undeter-
Yroin NV
itably work the gravest injustice to one
party or the other. and where the VAL
ues involved run into hundreds of thou
sands of dollars the Legislature may
we'll shrink from such needless jeop-
ardizing of private rights.
The whole proposition of this bill, we
submit, from the standpoint of all con-
cerned. petitioners as well as remon-
strants, is leap in the dark as fraught
with imprudence and peril to the COM
munity undertaking it as with injus-
tice to the corporation against which
it is undertaken f1s7<ff x .zisa
II is not worth while to waste the
time of this committee in discussing
the petitioners alleged grievances as
to the unreasonableness of rates and
impurity of the water. We have intro
duced in evidence before the committee
carefully prepared schedule giving
actual rates in force in all the impor-
tant towns and cities of this State as
compared with that of Brunswick and
Bath. and that table. we submit, Is a
conclusive REPUTATION of the petitioners
claim. Furthermore. we have shown
by another table that out of the thou
sand and sixty total consumers In
Brunswick, SAT, or practically sixty-one
per cent, pay for their whole annual
supply Of water ten dollars or less.
About 254, or twenty-four per cent,
pay between ten and twenty dollars;
1913. or about eleven and one-half per
cent, pay between twenty and thirty
dollars, and thirty-eight only pay over
thirty dollars a year.
So far as the purity and wholesome
ness of the supply from Nequaset lake
is concerned the only analysis of water
taken from the lake itself is the original
one made by Prof. Robinson in about
1894, and published at the time in the
Bath papers, which commended the
quality of the water in all respects.