The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-07-26
WEATHERLY CALLS SHOOK MOUTHP|ECE .OF WATER COMPANY Because He Is the Brother in-Law of President
 A. M. Lynn WILLING TO ACCEPT
 ISSUE AS RAISED Commissioner Says Shook Has In- jected Politics and That He Is Willing to Leave It to
 the People

Charging that the onslaught of Pas chal G. Shook in yesterday morning s Age-Herald was inspired by the fact that MT. Shook Is a brother-in-law of Presi- dent A NJ. Lynn of the Birmingham Waterworks company, City Commissioner James weatherly last night issued for nal staternent bristlng with such terms as q charge and~"I. challenge
 Stating that it is apparent MT. Shook is the mouthpiece of the Birmingham Wa terworks company in his statement and that MT. Shook evidently is trying. under the color of his office as president of the Chamber of Commerce, to influence the other two commissioners in their deci- sions in the water controversy, Mir Weatherly says that Mir Shook deliberate ly injects politics into the issue and that he accepts the challenge and will en- deavor to see that the issue is so clearly presented to the people that they will give their answer in no uncertain terms on the Fist day of September next
 The formal statement is as follows:
 Tt is peculiarly significant that Mir P. G. Shook throws his hat into the ring as champion of the waterworks com pany in the. present emergency The newspaper interview describes MT. Shook as president of the Chamber of Commerce. as if MT. Shook was speaking to the peo- pie in his official capacity as president of the Chamber of Commerce. but most people will suspect if they do not know, when informed of the fact that Mr Shook is brother-in-law of the president of the Birmingham Waterworks company, that his onslaught upon the city commis- sioners and especially upon myself, was rather inspired by his perso1al relations to the head of the Birmingham Water works company than by any association he may have with the Chamber of Com merce.
 M0uthpiece of Company
 Viewed in this light, Mr Shook may be considered the chosen mouthpiece of the Birmingham Waterworks company. Ii 1 is the company that speaks through MT l Shook.
 'Ordinarily when man breaks into l the newspapers with an interview or 6 statement he has an object to accom-. 1 pish: at least that Is the presumption l What was MT. Shocks object in this case? l have tried to analyze his some. what rambling statement to find out wha1
 he was trying to do. It would seem thai 1 he Is trying to make it appear to the | people of the city that under the color or his office as president of the Cham. Der or commereesnnd representing the sentiment of the Numbers of the Cham. Der of Commerce, he is attempting to throw the weight of that body into this controversy on the side of the waterworls company, and thereby force at least two members of the city commission to adopt the waterworks company's view of tha, controversy, Vo accept the, waterworks n n1f,aVa Dr,xrf .xff@ e.. conditions that all pending lawsuits should be dropped and that all questions of municipal ownership should be throt- tied until the time set by the water. works company for its being taken UT again, namely, in 1921.
 Tn order to further accomplish this object, Mir Shook has seen fit to cast aspersions upon my motives and to charge me with an attempt to use the water works company controversy as political club with which to force myself into office.
 MT Shook in attacking me himself deliberately injects politics into the sit uafion and If that is what the water works company desires I accent the challenge and will endeavor to see that | the issue is so clearly presented to the people that they will give their answer in no uncertain terms on the 21st day | of September, next
 Holds Weatherly Responsible MT. Shook advises the people that
 they have me to thank for their hay I ing to pay higher water rates He holds
 me solely responsible apparently for the fact that the people in 1912 over whelmingly voted down ordinance 97-C What was ordinance 97-C? It was an
 ordinance passed by majority of the commissioners Mr Exum and MT
 Lane, fixing the rates which the com
 pany has been charging for the past
 two years and permitting meter rates
 for domestic consumption in old Bir-
 mingham. If that had been all perhaps
 there would have been no trouble, bu,
 there was attached to that ordinance practically the same conditions that the
 company is seeking to attach to their offer for lower rates at this date
 namely, that the company's existing contract with old Birmingham should
 De reaffirmed and strengthened; that
 uo question as to the validity of its
 Franchise should be raised: that all itf
 past sins should be forgiven and thai
 no associations for the purchase of its plant should be entertained until 1921
 Though the people knew that they
 would get lower rates by that trans action they voted 1t down overwhelm-
 ingly after the fullest discussion. More
 than 5000 voters of the city of Bir- minsnam voted against it and only 30t voters of the city could be found te vote for It. It must be borne fin mind l too, that one of the decisive issues in.
 volved in the ordinance turned arounc
 the question of municipal ownership
 and believe that 90 per cent of those who voted against that ordinance die
 so because they were convinced that
 municipal ownership would be indefi. nitely retarded If such treaty of peace
 should be confirmed by the deliberate
 vote of the people of this city
 Commission Then Acted
 "Following this decisive adverse vote
 and in view of the conditions upor
 which that adverse vote was cast the city commissioners unanimously adopt. ed resolution instructing the city at. torney to institute proceedings in the
 courts to annul the company's fran.
 chise, after having previously passed
 an ordinance fixing the water com. pany's rates and another ordinance re-
 scinding the company's contract made with the city in the year 1888. All these steps were taken by the commission
 and not by me The city attorney ad-
 vised that the proper way to attack
 the company's franchise was by sui Iir the name of the state of Alabama against the waterworks company and wAs selected merely as a relator tf be responsible for the prosecution oi l the suit and the court costs All these tprcceedings have been under the off