Evening journal., 1908-04-22
SOLICITOR and
COUNCILMAN
HAVE A TILT
Questions to Mr.. Lelsen
tcontinued from First Pars.J

INtN- n" az AAAt ANbANAAd UlllNG were
lsuhiciently Informed as 10 be able TO
lenlighten him as to what of the par
icular Items Of exWnse are necessary
20 be separated or recorded under the
head OF distribution 70 enable him
l(Mr Leisen) TO determine whether the
plant is operated economically He
said he never made any effort to learn
whether they are sufficiently Informed
He did not think IL his duty TO know
in detail. II feel that the heads Of the
accounting department are the ones 10
Judge best Of the ability Of the clerks
at the head OF that department" OBJ
served Mr.. Loisen. He testified that
he had some say as TO how the ac-
counts should be kept, but had never
complained to the Board as to how
the accoutns are kept lie said 1t was
his duty to instruct az to how a proper
classification OF tho accounts should
be kept
HAS the boolSlxeeper or any Of the
bookkeopers any control Of the expen-
lditures of the department
Il don't understand that enough TO
give you an intelligent answer"
Mr. Leisen said he thought detail
ed classification OF the Items of ex-
lpense entering into distribution, etc,
was necessary for the guidance OF the
lengineer and the board. Just to what
lextent the classification Is necessary
he could not say at this time.
Mr. Townsend cited that in 1904 the
FIRST full year Mr.. Lesen was engineer
there was an increase OF $1,000 In
the cost OF distribution, the pumpage
being the same as the previous year,
and asked whether it was not the duty
10 n
show that the books OF the depart
ment show such a condition. Mr. Lei
sen said he didn't consider IL his duty
Ito 20 over the books and check up
every figure, but he had to depend
upon the clerks and bookkeepers for
much Of this detailed information.
Increased Expenses
"As engineer OF this department,
have you any idea what caused an
increase OF $1,000 in 1904 over 1903
lin the distribution accountY'
mo, sir without looking into the
lsubiect," replied Mr.. Leisen. He also
was unable TO say why the labor cost
lSi1 600 more IN 1904 than in 1908 with
out looking into the matter. MI. Lei
sen said his reports are intended 20
convey true and correct information
to the public.
"If 80 per cent. less OF repairs and
rene walls Of pipe cost more, then Is your
statement correctT'
Mr. Lelsen believed every statement
In his report was correct. He referred
to his report and said the revenues for
! 1904 was about $3.50 less than 1903. In
1904 and 1903 the expenditures for oper-
alton were not totaled to show the
operating expenses The pumpage for
1904 was 11s,000, 900 more gallons than
In 1908 or little over three per cent
more In 1904 than in 1908, or about ten
| or twelve days pumpage.
IAN analysis shows labor under dis
tribution in 1904. the first full year you
were engineer. of $27,s76.T and In 1908
of S1695O16. an increase Of $ll,Ol!.bo
What was the cause Of this2'
Mr. Leisen said he would have to look
that up. He thought he could look It
up by Friday. He cOnldn't recall any
extraordinary replaoements or con-
struction that year.
Are YOU aware that in 1908 you re-
placed 1876 feet OF mains and in 1904
YOU replaced but L6s2 feet?"
Il am"
How could the additional labor Of
lHUi over AiVot an AhNiNt'o "a fNf---
in 1904. be employedY'
Conditions may have been radically
different There may have been rock
in one case and not In another; there
may have been larger mains in one
case"
Have you no books, records or data
to tell what caused this condition.
Il have not"
.srhe pawroll for extensions for 1908
when YOU were engineer for four
months amounted 70 $14,679.7S and for
1904 amounted to S2O,10i, an Increase
of S542215. In 1908 the report shows
YOU laid 24OS0 feet OF main and In
1904 you laid 1897 feet, a decrease Of
5763 feet. How do you account FOR
this?~
'lt depends on conditions. think
that year we laid the pipe across the
Brandywine az West street.
Have YOU the figures OF the cost OF
laying the pipe at West street
mot now. but / could estimate It.
would estimate IL might cost from
$1,000 10 10000"
"Thats rough estimate. II might
cost $4,000 might it not"
TT might. under some conditions"
Value Of the Plant
Mr.. Townsend cltcu lnot tne water
plant in 1904 was valued at Si75O,ooo and
in 1906 and 1906 S52s.7Ss.22 was expended
in improvements. "why did Il not In
crease the value ef the plant 70 that
amount allowing for depreciationr'
asked Mr.. Townsend.
1T did" said Mr.. Leisen. He explained
that the figures Of improvements were not
based on exact information. The figures
were given by the registrar and Mr.
Lessen said they we're more Of an estibate
Abe we to infer that the $4,000 spent
didn't add 70 the value OF the planty'
1T certainly did" said Mr.. Leisen. II
then was pointed out to him that in 1904
the value OF the plant was given at ST.
$4,000 and in 1906 after $4,000 had been
added in Improvements the alue stin was
given as Sl.75o0o0. Mr.. Leisen said this
failure 10 add the Ss2.ooO was an omls-
sion on his part but as the work was
not completed he did not add Il to the
3 value ef the plant for that reason lie
thought Il certainly enhanced the value
Of the plant that much. allowing for de-
preeiation.
He said he didn't have any figures avail
able at the present time to show the
value Of the plant although he had made
up some such figures for Special Auditor
Fleason.
Mr.. Leisen said he didn't recall am
/ definite record OF what the city has