The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-07-19
No Reply Made to Questions
on Complex Features of
the Proposed Amendments
to Water Franchise.
THERE'S A REASON
THE WRITER STATES
Bavis Insists 1t Was and Still
Is the Intention of the
Company to Get a Perpet-
ual Franchise.

The following is communication
on the water works franchise situation
received from A. Bavis:
The Richmond Palladium:
In your issue of the Sd inst you
were kind enough to allow me the
space to PROFOUND few questions to
Mr.. Howard Dill, superintendent
Richmond city water works, with the
idea Of securing first hand some facts
pertinent to the water works problem
now before the board of pubic works.
Notwithstanding Mr.. Dill's declara
ton OF the Goth ulto that it would give
him pleasure to enlighten us on the
seeming complex features Of the pro-
posed amendment to the ordinance OF
1885, two weeks has passed and Mr..
Dill considers these questions unwor
thy of reply. or inexpedient from a
business standpoint to take cogni
zance.
Using the term Of a noted adver-
tizer-"There's a reason"
What is the reason?
A Perpetual Franchise
II Mr.. Dill had replied to my first
question, on the authority of the Ian,
guage contained in the proposed
amendment, he would have been com.
PEELED to admit that it was and is
the intention of his company to Sc
cure a perpetual franchise and by sc
securing. bind the city hands and feet,
rendering them helpless should they
at any time desire to discontinue bus.
iness relationship with the RichmorIi
city waecrworks Here is the perpet-
ual feature: 1T is further expressly
understood and agreed between said
city and said water works that nothing
herein contained shall limit or affect
the duration of the rights and priVi-
leges of said water works to lay and
maintain under the surface OF the
streets, alleys. avenues and thorouS
fares In said city OF Richmond, water
pipes and mains for the supply OF wa
ter to said city and the citizens there
of as granted to it by a certain ordi
nance Feb. 16. 1885
Should the city at any time desire to
avail itself of better terms offered by
a competing company at the close OF
the present applied for privileges il
would necessitate the tearing up OF
our streets unless the present com
pany's demands, based upon a suppos-
ed valuation was satisfied. Our pres
ent experience Of their modesty in
asking a plenty should be a safeguard
against granting such franchise.
Opinion Of Shiveley
II Mr.. Dill had answered question
No. he would have admitted. on the
correctness of the above quoted para
graph, that Attorney Shiveley. wher
or reported correctly be stated that
It was his firm conviction that the
Richmond city water works company
had perpetual right. by virtue o,
their present franchise. was stating
what he had no reason to believe was
true. Ii he believed 1t to be true why
is he asking for one now.
Had Mr.. Dill replied to question No
3 he would have disproven his own
statement and shown the illogic of his
position when he proclaims a desire to
see the city own the plant. Nothins
can be farther from the desire which
is borne out by their request for a
franchise in perpetuity.
1t further shows that the Richmond
city water company is fully awake to
the absurdity of the city ever becom
ing the owner of the plant and equip
ment. and they have planned well in
making such possibility as remote
as the possibility OF reaching heaven
by a hand car.
Why the Objection
Mr.. Dill asks in his communicates
Of the Goth ulto. why We object to the
valuation since il was fixed by the
city's expert. engineer?
II may be possible Mr.. Dill, if a
correct Interpretation of that apprais
ment was secured different aspec,
would be apparent
Edward A. Pratt and Company. eX
pert accountants, who audited your
books. has this to say in their report
I'VE discovered that one item which
would materially reduce the net profit
las been omitted in the water works
SNcord, we refer TO depreciation o,
pflnt and equipment, which in an in
Continued on Page Eight