The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram., 1912-08-21
Opinions Differ as to Wheth-
er City Should Share I'M
Net or Gross Earnings of
Water Plant.
jLINDEMUTH MAKES
A DIRECT ATTACK
Calls the Proposal One for
Rich Men" - Attorney
Johnson Defends Provis-
ions of Proposal.

Declaring that the proposal for a
water works contract drawn up by
the city, is pre-eminently a rich mans
franchise, framed in the interest OF the
rich man and against the poor man,
Attorney Lindemuth, representing the
Campfield company, last evening, at
the public meeting in the council
chamber, called for the purpose of dis
cussing the profit sharing clause. de-
nounced the city's proposal in no un-
certain terms. Lindemuth further de-
clared that he believed the board of
works and council with the city's at
torneys had framed the proposal
thoughtlessly but innocently.
He said that he was interested in
the matter in three ways. as a tax
payer. a water consumer and as an
attorney for a prospective bidder.
For a short time ii appeared as
though Lindemuth's opening remarks
and Attorney Johnson, special coun-
sci for the city in the water works
matter. Johnson objected to Linde-
muth speaking on the proposal gen.
orally and not confining his remarks
to the purchase clause. Johnson de-
clared that Lindemuth had explained
his views on all other clauses In the
proposal previously.
Had q Verbal Clash.
We'll II you're afraid to have me
give my opinion here in public all
right" was the answer OF Lfndemuth.
"Nobody's afraid of you or your
opinions" Johnson answered, heated
ly.
1t was some time before Mayor
Zimmerman could restore order. The
spectators and others present In the
council chamber apparently enjoyed
the word clash.
Lindemuth then resumed his ar
| raignment of the city officials for the
framing of the proposed contract.
IF you want low water rates and
the taxpayer to pay his just proportion
of the expense of the city government
this franchise. In the first place
you've provided for free water. for the
city's buildings. parks. hospitals.
| streets, etc. Now nobody's going to
| come here and give away water. It's
! all going to be paid for and the con-
sumer will be the man to pay IL. An
other thing is that you release the
| school corporation-a distinct and sep
arate body from the city government
| from paying for its water. / believe
that you can't legally advertise for
free water for a school corporation
and l doubt very much IL you can adj
| vertise for free water for the city cor
poration. II you compel bidders to
consider free water. you're not giving
the consumer the low rate.
The only thing to do is to eliminate
all special features and to make q
straight, simple contract proposal for
! a twenty-five year term with the city
reserving the option to buy"
Reply BY johnson.
After Mr. LindemySh finished Mr.
Johnson answered him. saying that II
was very evident to everyone In what
capacity Mr.. Lindemuth had spoken
Mr.. johnson said that the specifica-
tions had been prepared carefully by
the city and he did not think that the
free water clause should be eliminated
as the right of the company to sell
water 25 years was worth something
and that it should be paid for with
free water. He said that the criti
cisms that the specifications had been
/ prepared In the interest of the rich
| man was not true as the board of
| works and the attorneys had tried to
prepare a contract which would be
just to all citizens and consumers of
water. He said il was true that a great
many public service franchises had
been prepared heretofore by shrewd
| and INSCRIPTIONS lawyers, but the pro-
posed specifications had been prepar-
ed with care and honest thought for
the welfare of the citizen.
Wilfred Jessup, also an attorney for
| the city, followed Mr.. Johnson and
| spoke in a general way in defense of
the proposed contract and answered
Mr.. Lindemuth's argument
eavis Opposes Plan.
Alfred Bayis criticized the profit
sharing plan on the grounds that the
it and il would be an excuse for the
company to put in higher bids on wa
ter rates. Mr.. Bavis cited the Maury
/ report in which 1t is shown that the
earnings of the company In the last
six years averaged only s45.s1s.oo- He
said that under the proposed plan IL
would take IA years. / month and 10
days before the city would get penny
on the first years earnings He said
that the whole controversy hinged on
the matter of valuation and as the
proposed contract provides for a