The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1912-11-27

| water WORKS expired IN sept. or the
present year.
Preparatory to the granting of a
new contract said company and an al
legged competitor prepared a contract,
including rates, which was found very
Objectionable and rejected.
Public sentiment demanded that the
city through it's legal department, pre-
pare specifications as to what the city
desired, among which demands, is an
option to purchase, said option to be
assignable, but not within the first five
years. Should it be deemed advisable
at the expiration of ave years to either
exercise the option by purchasing the
plant, or to assign the option to other
parties, the value of the plant is to be
determined by the appraisal of three
competent appraisers who shall have
access to the company's books. which
is authorized by the Indiana laws of
| 1911.
The company in question refused to
bid on the specifications, primarily on
the ground that capital would not be
interested to the extent of investing
bodied in the contract
! l am writing to ask whether such
restrictions has ever come under your
observation, if so, has there been any
difficulty experienced in getting the
project financed?
l have gone through your Munich
! pal Franchises" and find no similar
( eli IN ho 7
am interested only as a citizen who
has felt called upon to offer some op-
position to the original proposals of
the companies, and have offered some
suggestions, which are incorporated in
the present specifications, the assigna-
! BILE feature of the option to purchase
being one, actuated solely by the
knowledge that without special legis-
| lative authority, either by increasing
the limit of Indebtedness to which we
might go, or by authority to purchase
a revenue producing utility, to be oper-
ated in the interest of the city irres-
pective of the 2 per cent limitation, the
option to purchase, held by the city,
and exercised by the city only, is a
farce as far as practical possibilities,
| inasmuch as the city cannot hope to
purchase the plant within the life of
/ the franchise, and without the assigna-
BILE feature would be useless as an eff
! fective means of coercing obedience to
the conditions of the franchise
| should be glad if you could aid me
in finding a precedence, or by giving
your opinion as to the Justice of our
! demand.
No one desires to be unfair, but past
experience demonstrates the import
ance of establishing some way of en-
forcing compliance to the terms of the
contract.
Very sincerely yours,
Alfred Bavis.
Reply Of Wilcox.
The reply of Mr.. Wilcox follows:
Alfred Bavis Esq.
Richmond, Ind.
Dear Sir:
You will pardon my delay in answer
ing your letter of the 18th inst
should think that you would be able
to iron out your difficulties by provid-
ing for water contract under which
the works would begin to pay for
themselves at once. so that the pur-
chase price would be decreasing while
you wait. In regard to the assignabil
ity of the option, can readily see how
a company would not like to accept
that clause, unless there Is provision
for certain bonus in excess of the
purchase price to the city in case the
option is assigned to another COM
pany.
But you ought not to have any diff
ficulty in coming to terms along these
lines.
Sincerely yours,
| DelOs F Wilcoy