Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-05-02


its promise.
Mr.. Hsath's Argument for the Water
District.
May 1t please the Court: This case Is
necessarily one that seems to me to
require all the time that the court has
30 generously awarded. and while I
have no desire to talk here for the sake
Of talking, find by the most careful
study OF the elements involved that It
may be difficult to cover the matters as
they ought to be covered even in that
time. I want in the first place to thank
the commissioners. lest forget 1t, In
behalf Of my people for the fairness
and courtesy that they have accorded
us. ! also want to acknowledge the
debt Of gratitude my people owe and
that Ii due from me for the wonderful
work which has been done in the
preparation of this case by Mr.. God
dard. And the court can we'll under
stand that the unusually broad expert
ence Of my associate, Judge Bumpus,
has kept me from making many a mis-
take Of judgment.
This water company. public SER
want. having finished the period Of it's
trusteeship-for that is what every
court has repeatedly said 1t is-having
held this property for eighteen years
as trustee for the public and it's servant
now finds this trusteeship at an end.
1t comes here invoking the law and de-
manding that the public whose duty it
was to serve shall give to it the last
dollar that they can get by law. They
are entitled to the law. They will I'M
questionably receive just and fair
treatment at the hands Of the court
whose representatives you are. But
Mr.. Chairman, when they demand the
law, the public, whose interests 1 have
the honor to represent, simply say:
"Give them the law" and that law will
10 even justice to the servant and the
master.
What briefly is their history? In
1886, when it really begins, the city of
Augusta, loaded with debt, was unable
under the constitution of this State to
exercise the municipal functions of
supplying itself and it's people with
water. Certain gentlemen skilled in
the exploiting Of public franchises at
the expense of others appeared.
They made a contract with the city. and
through two bond issues $685. 600 plus n
small revenue upon the first bond issue
was obtained from the innocent public.
$4,000 Of 1t going into their own pockets.
and approximately $2j5,OOO into this prop
erty. Not one dollar of earnings or of
contribution from so called stockholders
has since gone into the property. They
failed to provide pumping building with
a slate or metal roof according to the
contract. They put in a cheap, worthless.
inefficient filter. Successive typhoid fever
epidemics swept over the city until the
great epidemic of 1903. They succeeded in
evading taxes to the extent of nearly
$1,000 n year. They have received in UNI
lawful dividends 100000 They have al
lowed the property to depreciate 10000 or
$4,000 and pOcketed in dividends in vio-
lation of their public duty the money
that should have gone into a depreciation
fund. Mr.. Geo. p. Wescott remains in
Portland enjoying his dividends and sends
here as his representative this young Mr..
West. And now they have the audacity
to come here and advise you that they
should now withdraw from the taxpayers
whom they have wronged from 100000 to
362l 600. They must settle with us now
after eighteen years Of wrong upon the
principles of that great charter Of the
rights Of the people in the 97th Maine
There are five great elements in this
case. First, the present value of the
present property in its condition on March
!, 1904: second. the maximum, lawful net
income permissible from that property in
its condition and with its degree of efil-
cheney; third, the going value IL any;
fourth and one Of great questions OF this
case. is that maximum lawful net income
SO reached, assured; fifth, is there any
franchise value?
First, take the cast iron pipe. Mr..
Allen gave $155. 1857 as the price new.
Mr.. Shedd, s144.779.47. Mr.. Gray and
Mr.. Herring. $124.050.56. Mr.. Aliens
prices were as Of the first week Of
July 1903. All the engineers admitted
that no plant could have been built in
1903 with iron bought in July. So that
Mr.. Allen was clearly wrong In selec-
ting the highest price that was paid
during the year. Mr.. Shedd selected
prices as of March /, 1903, though ad-
hitting that If the plant were to be
built in 1903 the iron would have been
ordered and bought in December as he
said he did in his work in Providence
He admitted that iron was 1910 in
December 1902 and for a long time
after. Mr.. Gray and others used the
quotations OF March 1, 1904, and that
whole Issue turns upon the interpreta-
ton of the statute. The cost of iron in
1903 does not fix the value of that iron
as q property value March l. 1904
Suppose a plant had been built two
years before that, anticipating a deliv-
cry on March l, 1904. Why say built
the year before? Why not two years?
Why not three? The court does not
say, find the cost Of the property built
the year before. but what was its value
On the valuation date. That is one of
the things worked out in the opinion of
the court by the supreme court of the
United States which has become law
and which must be admitted. AS to
depreciation. submit that of Mr.. Gray
and Of Mr.. Herring at five and eight
tenths per cent. carefully computed
according to the times that the iron
was in the ground, as more business
like and more lawful than Mr.. Aliens
and Mr.. Shedd's Of five per cent. and
euyo mar oost v>ocroo%iyolx, If