The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-07-03

Elitor Palladium:
May | again beg the use of your
columns to reply to Mr.. Dilrs commu-
nication of the goth inst
I regret that l am not endowed with
the faculty of erecting mental green
houses from which to pluck bouquets
to throw to whomsoever / would
Were l thus endowed, the choicest
orchid available would be the missile
and Mr.. Dill the target. must content
myself By just saying that Mr.. Dill's
reply is the embodiment of courteous
ness and strictly in harmony with
what was expected.
IT is to be regretted that Mr.. Dill
evaded the essential features of my ar
ticle, resting content in the creating of
parallels that really has no bearing on
the points at issue.
While | may be party in CONNER
cial transaction such as Mr.. Dill sug-
gested, in the buying the business of
one of our Main street merchants, suf-
ficient precautions to have an inven-
tory of the stock made, if | had any
reason to suspect that exaggerated
values were included in the inventory
should be acting strictly within my
rights in protesting against such val
ues being included
That is precisely our position re-
garding the water works valuation.
No one questions the personal vir-
tues of those who constitute the per
sonnet of the Richmond City Water
Works, such virtues may be illumined
by an halo of glory, transmitted and
set apart as too sacred to be married
by a suspicious thought, yet such a
condition of virtuous perfection does
not remove single injustice contain
ed in the present proposed amend
ments to the ordinance of 1885.
In that we are mostly interested
This is business proposition wherein
both parties to the contract are seek
ing to secure the best possible terms
and on the terms secured by the city
will rest the judgment of future gener
ations as to the business capacity o.
present day men.
! am going to PROFOUND a few ques
tions to Mr.. Dill, placing them in nu
merical order asking him to reply
thereto in the order given (excep
question and IS to which l expect
and have no right to ask a reply)
list. Is it the intention of the Rich
mond City Water Works to secure, i
possible, a perpetual franchise which
they retain the right to use our street.
for all time to come?
End. Does not the section relatin,
to their desire for freedom from limi
tations to those rights and privileges
prove beyond doubt that Attorney Shi
vely is mistaken in his conclusion
that they are now possessed of a per
petual franchise?
3rd. Does not the request for a per
petual franchise disprove the theor,
that you are DESTROYS of seeing tn.
city become the owner Of the plant
and your proffered assistance to tn,
city to that end, become pure and un
adulterated buncombe?
4th. AS a citizen Mr. Dill, free from
commercial influences, public spirite,
as we know you to be, would you vot,
for such ordinance?
5th Does not Mr.. Maury in his re
port state that the life of pipes an,
mains is about 100 years? If so
9th What per cent of the plant
tangible values does the pipes an
mains consist?
7th If 25 per cent depreciation o.
pipes and mains is lust seeing the
have been in use % years, how niue
would such depreciation represent il
deduction? In other words what pc
centage of tangible values would pipe
and mains represent proportionate t
the whole?
Sth What figure does the issuing {