The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-02-05
ATTORNEY HAWKINS TALKS.
He Tells What Was Really Said in CONVEX
sation About the Broad Ripple Company.

r. o. Hawkins, one of the attorneys of the
Indianapolis Naturalea Company. said last
night at the New Denson House, in speaking of
the statement in the News that an attorney rep
resepting the indianapolis company had APP
preached the Broad Ripple company with sug-
gestions that the companies ought to be friends:
81 suppose the article refers to me, but I
had any conversation the subject with Mr.
Boardman, although l was informed that he had
called at my Office once twice in my absence
10 see me about some such an arrange
ment as is referred to in the News
did have a conversation upon the subject with
the attorney OF the Broad Ripple company, and
supposed it WAS. like all such conversations be-
tween attorneys, confidential one. but 1t is
we'll settled rule of evidence that when part
of conversation is detailed the whole then
becomes competent, and therefore l sup
pose there is objection to saying
what my recollection of the conversation
is. was told by the representative of the Broad
Ripple company that there was no use of the
companies being unfriendly, and that the ripple
company was in a position to be of a great deal
of use and help in securing amendments TO the
ordinances, land the amendments talked OF were
the same now asked by the INDIANAPOLIS compa-
ny) because it was com oany of small capital and
limited means and was popular with the people.
and because there had been particular hight
made against it, while the Indianapolis company
had larger capital and unpopular The
provisions of the ordinance We're discussed and
the attorney of the Broad Ripple company said
it ought to be and would have to be amended,
and that his company would be willing and was
DESTROYS assist In presenting the matter
to the Council if an agreement could be
reached between the two companies looking
to division of territory; that the Broad Ripple
and Indianapolis companies were all that would
ever come into the CITY; that mis- company had
lost confidence in the Consumers Trust Com
pany, and did not believe that it would ever do
anything"
continued ''that his company was about to sell
out to Mr.. Pogue. when Mr.. FrenZel who was
interested in the Trust company, persuaded Mr..
Maus and others not to carry out the agreement of
could sell It to the Trust company, and that
Frenzel had gone in with Mans and subscribed
for a large block of Broad Ripple stock in the
name of Maus & Co.. which stock had not been
paid for. IL also said that Frenzel failed to
consummate sale TO the Trust and then de-
clined pay for his part of the stock, and that
there was talk OF bringing suit by the Ripple
company against him to collect it..
I'm regard to territory was told the Broad
Ripple company would ask the INDIANAPOLIS
company to agree to leave to it Illinois
street as far Washin eton and all north and
west of those streets The Broad Ripple attorney
was told that the Indianapolis company con-
trolfed line of mains on Illinois street far
Third street. and would not feel like leaving
that territory. 1t was then proposed to me
that arrangement be made by
which the INDIANAPOLIS company would allow
the Broad Ripple company to use the Illinois
street main, but that was declined. inquired
if it was known how much territory the gas, the
Broad Ripple company had would furnish. and
was told that it wasfnot known, but it was sup
posed the company had enough to supply Hi
nois street and all west of it down TO Washing
ton. expressed doubts about that, and finally
proposed that if the Broad Ripple company de-
sired to make Such an arrangement that it take
Illinois street down to Third street and ali west
of that and west of Mississippi street, and if
after the Ripple company had laid mains TO
supply their territory, it had any surplus of
gas, the Indianapolis company would buy it, and
after some consideration l was informed that
that would not do. because OF the difficulty in
measuring gas, but that the right way to
do would be to pool the wells and
divide the net receipts of both companies be-
tween them in proportion to the number of
wells each had connected with its pipe line l
declined that saying that the Indianapolis COM
pany did desire to enter into such
rangement, and that is substantially all that was
said as I remember it."