The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-10-24
Attorneys For the City Submit
Statement TO the Local Public

water works case, following the Sc
cret meeting held last night with
members of the board of public works
and the city council, today submitted
the following public statement:
In consideration OF what was known
in regard to the water works question,
the attorneys sought to determine the
legal status Of the company and city
and bidders, the extent of powers and
limitations, reserving for further and
later advice and suggestion the event
ual steps to be taken and policies to
be insisted upon. The consideration
necessitated certain agreed premises
to be understood, that confusion might
be eliminated and limits set. 1t is
agreed that the city, being munich
pal corporation of this state in ~
was possessed of power to authorize
water companies to supply the city
and it's inhabitants with water, and
also to grant such companies the
right to lay pipes in streets and al
leys and ways for such purpose. The
statute was singularly free from fix
ing liabilities of such company or In
limitations of grant, leaving seeming
ly such grants by the city with only
such limitations which city might In
judgment at the time of the grant or
franchise designate. Such grants IN
the first instance, usually at lncessant
demand of community for the i'm
provement as in this case as the pro-
ceedings of the common council ana
files of newspapers from 81 until SO
indicate, are rarely made with future
in mind; and so here to the end that
in franchise from the city originally
granted and as now continuing, 1t Is
easy to construe same as perpetual
franchise, distinguished only so far
as city is concerned by contract for
hydrant service with limitation OF
time.
If such is the case, and the present
company has perpetual franchise,
the only real question would be rs 10
terms upon which the company and
the city can agree as to hydrant
rental contract, and what concession
to obtain favorable contract with the
city would the company make as to
private consumers.
1t is agreed to all practical purpo-
SEES that the present existing system
with the improvements, betterments
and extensions of the same is the sys
TEN to be employed in the future
whether the same continues to be
owned by the present company, by
|
other owner or by the city.
1t is agreed that the city, to acquire
the system, must pay for it, and thai
the city, at this time can not, and
until the present city debt is ellml
mated and aggregate taxable Valuation
considerably increased, can not pur
chase the plant
| 1t is agreed that the Richmond City
Water Works is a corporation, organ
lied under the manufacturing ane
mining corporation act; that such cor
porations may be organized now al
we'll as in 1888; that in such year
present company was incorporated TO-
the term of twenty (2O) years, and IL
1903, under terms of the act of 1S9.
} by resolution of stockholders, at an
nual meeting, filed certificate for pur
pose of extending the corporate ex
J tentions thirty 500 additional years
fifty (5O) years being corporate If
permitted under above statute.
!, 1t is agreed that in 'S5, the fran
> chise was first granted, and in SAM
: grant is a contract with the city TO
, seven ca years hydrant service
7 that in 1892, the seven year contract
} with amendments, was renewed TO
} the term of twenty COO years, whic]
, term expires October l, 1912. and
must he always borne in mind, tn
distinction between franchise OF tn
company from the city, and the cor
tract by the company with the city.
1t is agreed that the franchise
the company fixes the maximum rat
to be charged the private consumer
And is silent as to the minimum rate
+ and that the rate to be charged tn
i city for hydrant service is fixed, an
3 absolute until October 1, 1912.
!. 1t is agreed that if at this tim'
J. 1911, this proposition was for the mrs
v time being considered, with the pre-
t ent statutes in force, the city coul
, contract for a term not exceedin
r twenty-five (25) years, and give
franchise to water company for sue
term; and could fix the terms an
g prices for the commodity as a pal
e of the consideration of contract an
n franchise, (but whether the price ono
fixed, the city could change. in al
sence of reservation of the powe
so to do is not discussed other than
suggest the consideration of the re
ervation of the power in contract
made or franchises given.)
y With such premises in mind at tn
time, council advised that it divid
q proposition and questions into the fc
v lowing:
# () The duration of the franchis
o (2) The right of the city to exar
n inc into the present books and it's a
II fairs as we'll as in books and affair
1t OF any other bidder.
90 Right of city to assign its pre-
a ent right to buy present system
n water works.
W ca Right of such assignee to pu