The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-07-26
Offer of 100000 Made by
Campfield for the Plant of
Operating Company, but 1t
Was Refused.
INTERVIEW BY DILL;
LINDEMUTH SILENT
Attorney for Campfield Not
Willing to Talk Until Dill
Will Make More Definite
Statements.

There have been negotiations be-
tween the e. NJ. Campbell Co, and
the Richmond City Water Works CON-
pany pertaining to the purchase OF the
plant of the latter concern by the for
mer company. The Campfield company
is ready to pay 100000 for the plant.
Representatives OF that company ad.
NIT there have been conferences be-
tween the companies pertaining to the
deal. H. A. Dill Of the Richmond City
Water Works company states that no
proposition had been made to his COM
pany in writing. but that he under
stood such proposition was to be
made. E. H. Gates, another director OF
the Richmond City company was ask
ed If his company would sell for $780,
900. He replied with force. "Well I
should say not
Mr.. Gates said he didn't know the
Campfield company had any money to
buy plant, or that 1t really was
company He claims that he knows Of
no proposition being made to his COM
pany for the purchase of the plant
Nevertheless. 1t Is authentically under
stood that such 4 proposition has been
made to the Richmond City Water
Works company and that after its pre-
sentation. it is understood Mr.. Gates
went TO New York for a conference
with financial interests hehind Camp
Held. During his absence two stock
holders of the company, who hold
large blocks of stock declined abso-
lutely to sell.
Proposition 10 Refused.
On Mr.. Gates return to Richmond
it is said the Campheld company was
informed that the Richmond City
company would not sell at any price
has evaded as much as possible all
questions regarding the reported deal.
This morning, In an interview with
Howard Dill, superintendent OF tho
r. c. w. Co. the following questions
and answers were addressed to and
answered by him:
Would you sell your plant for
100000 spot CASH."
II never give out information with
out the sanction of the board Of direc-
tors. This question has not been on
cially considered
HAS such a proposition been made
to you?"
mot in writing, nor not ofIicially.
Rumors l have heard. perhaps such
as you have heard. I've understood
that such a proposition will be made"
"In case the city rejects your bid
will you make another"
IF the city orders new bids we shall
make another"
do your attorneys consider that
you hold perpetual franchise!"
"Yes."
Would you be willing to sell on tho
basis of the Maury report?"
II cannot say that we shall sell ON
that basis
do you consider the Maury report
a fair one?"
"As to the valuation. yes"
Are Willing to Sell.
Would you sell to an outside con.
GERM"
"Of course everyone will sell IL they
get their price"
Several questions were put to AT.
torney Lindemuth. representing tho
f. NJ Campfield company. and he re-
fused to answer them. He wanted tho
reporter to get more precise state
ments from Mr.. Dill before committing
himself
He said he would corroborate the
facts in the case If satisfactory inter-
view with Mr.. Dill or other members
of the board of the Richmond City
Water Works company was shown to
him.
Mr.. Lindemuth further declared II
the reporter would get a statement
from one Of the water works ofiiciafs
that the company would sell for $780,
900, or that IL any certain member OF
the board would say that he would
recommend such sale in the board
of directors meeting, then the Camp
feld company would have some basis
on which to work. He said the news
paper man might be able TO get infor.
nation whereas he, representing e NJ
Campfield. would fail to do So He in
timated that the Richmond City Water
Works company would not sell to the
E. NJ. Campfield company.
In my opinion. the Richmond city
company will not sell for 500. 600 or
any other price, unless it is absurdly
Continued on Page Six)