The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-10-22


! is adopted it then becomes a part of
the franchise of 1855 and free from the
restrictive mandates of the law.
! All franchise rights under those
contracts should be repealed, and a
new franchise be granted. thus avail
ing ourselves of the protection afford
ed by that law.
Objection No. I've object to it on
the grounds that they are trying to re-
tain what they consider the perpetual
feature, as found in Sec. s, an amend
ment of Dec. 81, which also stipulates
the granting of free water privilege,
and if they can be sustained, which
| very much doubt in their contendings
of perpetuity of franchise rights, then
the city by the same token are Sc
cure in perpetual free water privi-
leges.
Objection No. 8-We object to it on
further grounds that a public service
corporation whose dividends depends
on public money, should be compelled
to render a statement of facts as to
! the amount of their cash assets upon
which their dividends are computed.
No one objects to fair profit on an
| investment, but that investment should
be proven and there can be no better
way of proving the cash investments
than by an impartial investigation
Of the companys books.
| We have the right to demand their
production on the following grounds:
| First-The law of 1909 permits it.
Second-We are not unreasonable in
assuming, as l have before stated,
that the valuation is very much pad
ded and inflated.
Let me give you an example. When
! the $3.50, 100000 of bonds were sold it
was ostensibly for the purpose of
laying an additional main, to add to
our protection against fire That
main has never been laid. What be-
came of the money? Was it used to re-
imurse those who had originally in
vested their money to the extent of
1898 100000? If SO, does the stock held
by the stockholders just represent the
difference between $25O,OOO.OO and
1888 100000, the contract price for the
plants installation? We do not know,
neither can We know without an in
vestigation of their books.
Third-Every public service corpo-
ration on assuming bonded indebt-
edness, sonsider their first duty to be,
to provide a sinking fund into which
they deposit sufficient sum annual
ly, that will, plus interest, equal the
face value of those bonds at maturity
The Richmond City Water Works
claim to have allowed $3.50, 1000 90
worth of bonds to come within two
years of maturity without provision
for their payment. They must pardon
me for saying, l don't believe any
thing of the kind and l am not un-
reasonable in assuming that about
S200,00000, constituting this fund is
being hid, and thereby enabling them
to charge the city $50 interest on the
full issue viz. $12,5O0.O0, about SIS
cents more from every man, woman
and child in Richmond.
The only way to remove the sus-
picion is to produce the books
The question has been put to me at
different times by different persons
as to just what the city should do.
Under the old contract the R. C. w
w. are compelled to supply the city
with water under as favorable terms
as the present contract provides.
In the meantime would suggest in
vestigating the company's books,
thereby determining the valuation of
the plant; then proceed with the for
mulating of new contract (by the
city officials) placing the same in the
office of the city clerk, as specifica~
tons, advertise for bids and sell to
the most favorable bidder. would
under no circumstances grant a con-
tract for a longer period than 20
years divided into year periods, with
the option of purchase at the end of
any of the 5 year periods. Provision
should be made for a reasonable IL
cense fee, or compensation for the
franchise value according to the au-
thority granted by an enactment of
the 67th Indiana legislature approved
March 3rd, 1911.