The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1912-11-12
d marked exhibit co. as part of thi,
Suit in Chancery Court

and marked exhibit CO. az a part of this
bill.
Suit in Chancery Court
suit. as the agreement contemplated,
was brought in the chancery court OF
Jefferson county to determine whether
orator was obligated by the original con-
trnct, and for the time stated, to supply
residents requiring the high service at the
said flat rates. and it has Just recently
been held by the supreme court of Ala
bama that said contract of June 2, 1888.
did obligate orator during the term COW
eI ed by said supplemental agreement to
supply water to the inhabitants in that
elevated section of the present city. and
at the same rates charged under the
original contract-whether they were re-
| munerative or not.
VII
Your orator now further AYERS that IL
the year 1911, the Legislature of the state
of Alabama passed an act amending the
charter of the city of Birmingham SO as
to vest all the powers formerly exercised
by the various officials and boards of
said municipality In a board of commits
sioners composed of three members, the
president and two other commissioners, to
which board was transferred all the rights
of the previous corporation, subject to
all existing liabilities and contracts. This
board of commissioners was, among other
things. clothed, by the legislature of Ala
bama, with the power of regulating the
rates to be charged by waterworks COM
panes operating within said city, and
supplying its inhabitants with water for
domestic and other uses Acting in pHrsu-
ance of the authority thus conferred the
said board did on the 2Sth day of Feb
ruary. 1912, pass an ordinance entitled
mo. CSC. An ordinance regulating the
manner and rates for furnishing water
to private consumers in the city of Bir-
mingham. This ordinance prescribed the
rates to be charged TO the patrons by
orator considerably below the rates which
ii was authorized to charge by the con
tract of June q 1888. Before it was
passed, the commissioners were advised
as orator is informed and believes, that
they had a right to regulate and re-
duce the rates as fixed by section 12 OF
Sc id contract and knew that this right
was being disputed by orator Fines and
penalties were prescribed to compel orator
to put in force the reduced rates and all
provisions of prior ordinances conflicting
with this one were repealed. The subur-
ban corporations, which as separate mu-
inequalities had previously contracted
with defendant for their supplies of water
were excepted from the operation of this
ordinance.
VIII.
Effective April |, 1912
That the ordinance referred to in the
last paragraph of this bill was by its
terms to become effective April /, 1912.
Before that time, and for the purpose of
compromising the controversy between
orator and defendant city as to the right
of the latter to regulate or reduce the
rates as fixed by the contract of June 2,
1888, and to avoid litigation which seemed
necessary to orator to protect its rights.
II proposed to the commissioners of de-
PENDANT city that it would agree to GER
tain amendments of its original contract
and all of it's contracts with the old SUI
burban municipalities, now forming a
part of defendant city, so as to reduce
the charges for water supplied by 1t for
public use, and also certain of the rates
specified for supplying water to private
consumers, and providing for measuring
by meter the water supplied was not
consumption This proposition was not
acted on before April /, 1912, although
made some days prior thereto, and the
ordinance which was to have gone into
effect on that day was suspended during
the further negotiations brought about
by orators proposition. This proposition
was changed from time to time as the
different provisions thereof were discussed
and was finally dated June a. 1912, and
as so dated and made, was duly accepted
by the board of commissioners of said
defendant city by an ordinance duly
passed on the 3rd day of July. 1912. The
proposition of orator which was accepted
as aforesaid applied to all tho
| territory covered by the present
limits of defendant city, and for
/ this reason expressly modified and
reduced the rates provided for by the
contract for June ., 1888, and the con-
| tracts existing between orator and any
suburb formerly existing as a separate
municipal corporation, and now forming
a part of the city of Birmingham. The
| contracts with former municipalities I'M
der which the rates were reduced as
| aforesaid included contracts between
orator and East Lake, Woodlawn, Avon
dale, Elyton. Graymont, North Haven
West End, Pratt City, Ensley and Wy
lam. copy of the said ordinance, No.
&c, is herewith filed as Exhibit 3D. to
this, BILL and as part of the same
Orator charges that this ordinance is a
contract of fixing the rates for water
to be supplied for public and private use,
as provided therein, and by the contract
of June g. 1883, and the other contracts
therein named, and fixing the rates so
| reduced in all said contracts, until the
termination of the contract of June 2,
1883; and 1t is an agreed settlement and
PENDANT city to regulate the rates of Ora
| tor contrary to the provisions of said con-
| tract during the time stated.
| orator Immediately afterwards put in
| force the rates as stipulated in said or
dinance from April !, 1912. and has re-
| funded, or offered to refund all payments
made to it in excess of said rates before
the contract stated above was finally
| executed.
| Orator, therefore, charges that as modi-
fled by the last named contract, there
! is in force between 1t and defendant city
the contract of June 2. 1888, and the ether
these contracts, the rates which Orator is
authorized to charge are fixed until tie
contract of June %, 1888, shall expire.
| TX:
Citizens File Petition
| That after the passage of ordinance No.
&c accepting orators proposition to re-
duce its rates as aforesaid. a thousand or
more of the qualified voters of defendant
city filed their written petition with the
Board of Commissioners Directing to the
said ordinance. The petition was filed in
the manner provided by Section 5 of an
act of the legislature of Alabama ere
| ating commission form of government
| for the city of Birmingham on the claim
that 1t was authorized by this provision
| of said act. On the receipt of this petit
| ton, verified as said section required.
| the Board of Commissioners adopted an
ordinance calling and ordering an election
| by the citizens of Birmingham. TO be
| held September 9, 1912, to determine
whether or not ordinance No. &c should
become effective. At said election, a
majority of the votes cast was against
| said ordinance No Q7-C This e1ectiOn