The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1915-01-07
WEATHERLY MAKES
BRIEF COMMENT ON
.H0RNER STATEMENT
Attributes the Card to Wal
ker Percy of Counsel
For Company
ALSO MEMBER OF
COMMITTEE OF 100
MIR. Weatherly In His Statement Con-
meets the Two Facts-Issues For
NAL Gard In Reply to Sugges-
tions as to Paying Bills

James Weatherly. associate memb. \
OF the city commission. in response to a
reporters question last night, said:
We'll, | have just made this remark;
walker Percy. counsel for the Birming-
nam Waterworks company. has adj
dressed communication to Walker
Percy, member of the committee OF 100
You may quote that"
The reporter had asked Mr. Wcath-
erly to reply to the card of II. III. Hor-
ner, superintendent of the Birmingham
Waterworks company. which card con
tanned suggestions to the committee OF
loV citizens named to devise plans for
the financial relief of Birmingham.
In that card, Mr. Uorner stated that
the present rates charged the city OF
Birmingham and the citizens of Biz
mingham produced respectively $4,000
and $4,000 in excess of amounts pro
duced by Ordinance SIC. the ordinance
which the people rejected and which. 1t
| Is now suggested. would be restored
In return for abandonment of prosocu-
ton.
Silent as to Money Spent
When the reporter had recovered from,
surprise caused by MIR. Weatherlys re-
tort, he asked another question:
Are you In position to say whether or
not 1t is true that the city is now
paying $4,000 and the people $4,000
IN excess of the amounts paid under
ordnance 97-CY
II am not said Mr. weatherly. II
haven't examined that point carefully
enough to make reply"
In regard to the suggestion of the
company that the people now pay their
bills promptly in view of the fact that
the company had won contested points
IN the supreme court Mr.. Weatherly
issued the following formal card:
"The Birmingham Waterworks com
pany again appeals to its consumers to
ray up it's disputed bills, saying that
Following the recent decisions of the
supreme court there Is no longer any
reason for nonpayment.
THE consumers OF water have the
same right to refuse payment of unjust
charges now that they have always had
IF Il charge Is clearly excessive: IN
a charge is clearly erroneous; If. by
regular readings of meters the cor
sumer is charged twice for the same
service; If an extra room, closet or
bath. or service, IL charged for on the
fiat basis, which should not be charged.
If there Is a bona fide dispute as to
the correctness of n bill; these and like
instances AFFORD the legal and moral
Justication to the consumer to refuse
and to resist payment.
Do Not Be Bullied
The consumer should not permit him
self to he bullied into payment OF an
unjust bill or charge. The company in
this public statement seeks to beguile
the dear consumer by soft words. while
on the quiet, In the conduct of its
henchmen toward the poor and friend
less. 1t Is pursuing an aggressive policy
of intimidation by threats to cut OFF
water and by boasts that 1t has been
victorious m all the courts
III the people will only stand solidly
together. II is as certain as fate--as
certain as death and taxes--that this
terrific burden Will be cast off their
shoulders--that the city Will put this
hateful monopoly out of business either
by revoking its charter and franchise:
by purchase or condemnation of its
plant. or by the city building its own
plant.
when a public monopoly possessing
the power to crush exacts excessive
charges. this constitutes the crime of
extortion, and is itself ground for re-
voking it's charter and franchise.
I'm view OF this publication of net
earnings and financial conditions, why
did the company so desperately resist
all effort In the Hawkins case to In
spect its books? Rather than that. they
asked the court to 'recuse' itself
Naturally, the consumer Will also
'recuse' himself