Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-06-19

please understand that l attribute M
| Intentional deception to Mr.. Manley il
making this error. He is not a lawyer
and it is evident that he has given til,
water district charter no particular
study. He also ueducts $4,000 for oper.
ating the filter plant. According to Tho
report in the New Age, a filter plan
could be operated for thousand dol
lars year, but this item can be ignored
because the sun, the air and the force.
of nature will sufficiently purify the
water to be taken from our neighbor.
ing lakes and ponds. With these cor.
rectiOns in Mr.. Manley's analysis We
| would start upon his statements will
a gross income of 100000 year. AS.
Stunning that this starting point of $780,.
| 600 is correct, and deducting the $780,.
| 600, which under the rule of Court mus
be deducted, we should have then fol
subtracting from our gross income 49,.
$50 for interest, $4,000 for operating
Expenses, $500 for the annual contri.
button to the sinking fund, or tota
of $33,750, leaving q clean profit OF
$3.50 q year.
| These figures however, are not ac-
curate. The true starting point should
be $480,000, if based upon Mr.. Man.
leys own figures. If the income is tc
remain at $4,000 he should deduct fo1
| interest $4,000. operating expenses
10000 sinking fund $4,000, a total of $780,
| 600, leaving an annual profit of $9400
which would be the interest on $270, 00C
| in new bonds, a sum far in excess of
what would be needed to reach q good
| lake in the search for purer water.
The surplus would be used in reducing
water rates. Another great means of
| reducing water rates would be the
cheapening of the rates themselves,
thereby increasing consumption, for
such has been the experience of oil
cities that have undertaken to manage
| their works at cost, as we propose to
manage them here. Cheaper , water
rates always produce larger income
There is no reason why the results ar
| rived at in Auburn should not be
equalled in Augusta. There is TO rea-
son why the splendid results reached
all over the country should not be
reached here. Accepting all of Mr.
Manleys figures, the financial PROPOSE
ton is simple. We most assuredly can
decrease water rates, change our
water supply to some pure lake and In
the end secure better and cheaper
water. My figures above are based
upon Mr.. Manley's letter. Applying
the court rule, if his company now
charges $4,000 q year, the appraisal
ought not to exceed $500, OOO-leaving an
ample margin for the cost of going to
lake and allowing q reduction in water
rates from savings, to say nothing of
new revenue to come by cheapening
the rates.
90 Mr.. Manley by inadvertance
states that any deficiency must be
made up by taxation.
The charter distinctly takes away
from the district the power of taxation.
The city as a city will have no more
power to levy taxes for this water dis
trict than it would to pay off the de-
ficiencies in the school districts. No
taxes are possible. The Supreme court
has so decided.
QOo Mr.. Manley is in error in say
ing that the proposition when adj
dressed to the Legislature covered only
the idea of pure water, and that no
proposition of public ownership was in
vOlved.
At the great mass meeting held just
prior to the passage of the bill the
speeches of Mr.. Sheldon and Mr.. Dun
mack were largely addressed to the
question of public ownership and that
seemed to be the unanimous sentiment
of the meeting.
/ notice no other corrections of fact
required. The communication signed
George p. Wescott, president of the
Augusta Water Company" and dated
Augusta, June 10Th. 1903" published
in your paper of Wednesday, hardly
calls for an answer. I am reliably in
formed that Mr.. Westcott is now in
Germany, and therefore never saw this
communication. No president of
corporation can authorize any other
person to bind him by signing his
name. This is familiar law. If before
he left for Europe Mr. Westcott gave
general authority to any person to sign
his name to business offers of this
character such authority was Illegal
and illegally granted, and the company
would not be bound by promises so
made.
I beg to be understood that in calling
attention to the above corrections /
make no charge. by insinuation or
otherwise, that Mr. Manley has in
tentionally attempted to deceive or
mislead. His errors are largely errors
of law, a subject outside of his train
ing or calling, and unquestionably
come from the haste of preparation in
cident to the business of every man.
His matters of argument have been so
cOnclusively answered by your cor
respondent in your edition of Thurs
day that it would be improper for me
to refer to them. My only purpose has
been to correct the manifest mistakes
of the communication, due, as above
suggested, to Mr.. Manley's haste and
want of familiarity with the legal
questions involved. I advance no
legal opinions of my own. The Su-
preme court has settled the rules. They
are open tO the knouladpa of opv