The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-07-31
Letter From Wimbish

me |, give you a resume of the suc- cessful fight conducted in behalf of the city of Columbus for the establishment of it's municipal system of waterworks.
 In 1881 the city of Columbus granted franchise to, and entered into a con- tract with. private company for sup plying the city and its inhabitants with water for public and domestic purposes. The quality of the water and the char acter of the service becoming unsatis- factory, the city determined to construct and operate its own municipal system and voted bonds for this purpose in Decem- Der. 1902. Pending the issuance of the bonds and their being offered for sale the water company. in July, 1903, filed a bill in the United States circuit court to enjoin the city on the ground that the construction of the municipal sys- tenn would violate the obligation of the contract between the city and the water company The case was heard at great length and the litigation was quite ex- tended, going twice to the supreme court of the United States. The city was even tually entirely successful. and its right to establish and operate it's own municipal system was fully vindicated in the su- preme court of the United States.
 Subsequently Birmingham capital be- came interested and purchased the prop erty of the Columbus Waterworks com pany. Notwithstanding that the water system had been bettered, and the char acter of the service greatly improved, the people of Columbus were firmly con vinced that municipal ownership of this great public utility was essential to the highest public good. Again bonds were voted, issued and sold for the purpose of constructing the municipal system. The water company undertook to enjoin the city from acquiring by condemnati ton cer- tain properties and rights deemed by the city necessary to the system. In this the water company was unsuccessful. and thereupon an agreement was reached under which the city purchased from the water company that portion of It's prop critics and system that could be used in connection with the municipal system. One motive of the city in buying was to prevent anything like confiscation of val ues, since it was recognized that the pri- vate system could not successfully com pete with the municipal system. This purchase. I hope. has enabled the stock holders of the water company to get out without actual loss.
 Public Ownership Best
 'It is well recognized that the supply of water to a city is in it's nature a monopoly, and that the service can be best and most economically performed through public ownership. It has been demonstrated in this country and, I think, in Europe as well, that public ownership is the only guarantee of sus- tained quality of water, character of service and reasonableness of charges. In the nature of the case, few cities, if any can profitably support two water system. and it is manifest that no pri- vate system could successfully compete, or even survive, as against a properly constructed and economically managed municipal system
 Nothing so intimately affects the health. comfort and safety of the public as an abundant supply of pure water foI fire protection, sanitary sewerage and domestic uses. Adequate provision for such purposes is peculiarly public func- tion, and lies immediately within the po- lice power of city.
 No city, once undertaking the public ownership of Its water system has ever returned to private ownership, so far as l am aware. On the other hand, the