The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-03-10
Mr.. W00LLEN WASMISTAKEN
City Attorney Holds that the Per Cent.
OF Gross Receipts Is Not Due for 1891.
Brush Company Gets OF Lightly-Som. Of
the Sprinkling Bids Rsjec;ed-Bids Will
BE Re-Advertised For Minor Affairs.


referred ali the papers referring TO the
payment of per cent. OF its gross receipts
TO the city by the Brush company to City
Attorney Bailey, and yesterday morning
no rendered his opinion. HIS finding 10
about the same as that of ex-City Attorney
Taylor. the present attorney for the Brush
company.
He says there is nothing anywhere in
general ordinance No. a. that requires the
Brush company to Day n per cent on its
gross receipts prior TO Dec. 81, 1891. unless
IL may be said that the ''proviso." quoted
elsewhere. may fairly be construed To
mean that II must pay on it's gross receipts
from the expiration of it's then contract
with the city, which contract ended on
Dec. 81, 1870.
What. then. does the clause, "SbaIl not
apply TO the indianapolis Brush Electric
light and Power Company until after the
expiration OF Its present contract with the
city. tO-wit: Dec. 81. 1884," meant bs
asks. Had the Common Council intended
that the Brush company should begin pay
ing on Its gross receipts commencing with
the day after the expiration of its contract
such purpose cOuld have been easily and
clearly indicated by saying that such re-
qulrement would not apply TO the COM
pany. until after the expiration of it's
present contract with the city. which con-
tract expires on Dec. 81, 1902 In other
words, had the Council intended that the
express date set out at the close of Section
Is should indicate the day on which the
contract between the city and the COM
pany terminated. II could have easily
employed the clause last above suggested
instead of the one which was in
fact used. As it is the ordinance declares
that the per cent. snail not be required
until after the expiration of it's present
contract with said city. to-wit. Dec. 81,
1891" The company's contract terminated
IL tr.,a thaf
1891. Is after Dec. 81. 1880. If tbe Council
intended TO give the Brush company u
years time after the expiration of its con-
tract. which seems probable. it is perhaps
true that such purpose would have been
more clearly expressed had they used the
following language: Until Ia certain
time) alter the expiration of its present
contract with the city. to-wit. Dec. 81.
1884," Such q clause would have indicated
beyond controversy that the date used did
not refer TO the date marking the termina-
tion OF the contract, or rather the exact
time when the per cent. should begin to
run.
The purpose of the Council with refer
ence TO tho Brush Company is clearly in
dictated in this: The company's contract
expired on Dec. 81. 1890. The requirement.
of General Ordinance No. A, that all wires
should go under ground would apply TO the
Brush company OH Jan. j, 1S9l-the very
next day after its contract with the city
had expired-and 1t would be guilty of q
mlsutniehnOf anu 6unlecb 10 prosecution on
that day, and all succeeding days. until its
wires had been SO laid as Co comply with
the provisions OF the ordinance. unless it
were exempt from its provisions. Ii seems
that the Council recognized the impossible
ity OF the Brush cOmpany's being able TO
place its wires within the territory pre-
scribed under ground In one day, and. rath-
er than force 1t into the attitude
of being violator OF the law.
suspended the operation OF the ordinance
as 10 the company for one year. evidently
aeeming that period a reasonable one
within which the company could adapt
itself 70 the situation. Ii. then. the pro-
visions of the ordinance with reference to
the company's wires going under ground
was suspended for one year from the eX-
piratIon of its contract, most certainly tho
provision with reference 10 the payment or
2l9 per cent Oh its gross receipts was like
wise suspended, because both questions are
embraced In aud covered by the same
"proviso" In Section 10.
Continuing. be says: 1T seems clear to
me hey ond n ii question, therefore, that ordi-
nance No. II was not intended TO apply to
the Brush company. either as to the re-
quirement that It's wires should GO under
ground. or that IL should pay 2IR per cent.
on it's gross receipts. until one year after
the Q pIration of Its then contract. which
expired Dec. 81, 1870. That is TO say, that
the ordinance was not intended 60 apply TO
the Brush company until Jan. j. lSy2. from
and after that date IL should he required TO
pay 249 per cent. OH it's gross receipts from
incandescent lighting up TO Jan. j. 1896.
and thereafter per cent; that from and
after Jan. !. 1872. IL should pay Pa per cent.
on lis gross receipts from arc electric
lighting, and 5 per cent on its gross re-
ceipts from that source from and after Jan.
/, 1884"
Sprinkling Contracts Awarded.
The Board of Public Works considered
the street-sprinkling bids at yesterday
nd IN dari led hat
a good many of them were entirely too
high. After considering the matter for
some time it was decided to reject all bids
over $50 per 10000 square feet. Under this
order she following contracts will lie
awarded:
First District-Fuehrinq Bros. three
sprInklings at Sis, 60 l215o; four sprink-
lings at As 500.
Second Distrlct-Fnehrlng Bros, three
sprink llnes at S4i. 81. ,6S. % tour sprinklings
at $40. 81.
Third District-Fuehring Bros. at sSs.
Fourth Distrlct-Fuehring Bros. at S44,
Sl.7Sr.70.
Eighth District-Charles T. Lee, at si925;
S7,Sl4s0.
Fourteenth Distrct--Fuehring Bros.
three sprinkiings at So, sl.7lS55; four
spTinklIngs at SIS. y, 5216A
Seventeenth District-Fuehring Bros,
three sDrinklings at SIS. SSl5s.9S; four
sprinklings az 81. S2.g93.6a.
Nineternth District-Fuehring Bros.
three surinklIngs at SH, s.. 739.40: four
sprinkllngs at Si5. si7?.22
Twenty first District-Fuehring Bros.
three sprinklinps ut $50. Sil57.5l; four
sprinklings at SIC. S59.3S
The total nunIb Der of squares included in
the districts is 21G. the length of streets
so. 963 feet and the total cost of sprin king,
had oil the bids been accepted. S72l7i.3l.
Mr.. Defrees has figured out table rang
ing between the lowest bid presented. IS,
and $50. above which none will be accepted.
AT S3S per 10000 square feet. twenty foOt
roadway will cost - cents; at $50. o sixty
foot roadway Will cost 1866 cents
Engines Paid For.
Mr.. Ahrens, OF the Ahrens Manufacturing
Company. of Cincinnati, WAS in the city
yesterday to get his money from the Board
of Public Safety for the two engines al
ready delivered. A test was made OF the
last engine received Monday afternoon o.
the bank of the canal at West street, which
proved satisfactory. and the engine was
accepted. These two eLginrs cost the city
s. 100. but il gets a rebate OF 200 for old
engines Nos. aud 5.