The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1912-11-13

Hr., 4. M. Campf1sld in his supple
ensutary letter giving his reasons as
10 why be. on behalf Of his company,
tsszs,sed to bid on the water contract,
fundertsiHes to speak on behalf of the
lConsumers Of water, and in so doing,
csiticises the specifications because
of their Limitation to the privileges
(which private service corporations
CONSIDER they should have.
Mr.. Campfield seems to lose sight
Of tho fact that the city is binding it.
self to q contract for rs years, and
contract minus specific stipulations,
essential to the safe guarding it's in
fterest. becomes too often overbearing
and oppressive, which is discovered
when too late to remedy.
One of the strongest points that
could be used against hasty conclu-
sion Is found in the statement Mr..
Campfield makes as to the inadequacy
Of pressure at the Colonial building
fire. supplemented by the further state
ment that the mains are inadequate
also.
You see Mr.. Campfield, those are
some Of the things the city was power
less to demand, and the public is no
more inclined to believe that you
would have had the plant in better
working order than did the Richmond
CITY Water Works, had it been under
your control.
Private corporations are not built
that way. What is to be got from
them, is only possible under a compul-
sorry clause in the contract.
The only trouble with this specifica-
ton is, it is drawn up in the interest
of the city and people, and it circum-
scribes the power of the company in
its dealings with the city and patrons.
The contract, by virtue of the year
limitation, Is not a tentative one, as
Mr.. Campfield would have us believe,
on the contrary, 1t is 25 year con-
tract, with year limitation, and an
option made assignable, the limit to
he used and option assigned when you
fail to comply with the conditions set
forth in the contract.
What can be more reasonable? The
best thought of the city's legal depart
ment has been given to this proposal,
and under no circumstances should it
be swept aside to conform to a con-
itemplating bidders wish.
The complain raised by Mr.. Camp
field regarding the delay is not with
out just reason, but the people can
better afford to pay the present rate
for a little while longer and be sure
of getting an acceptable contract, than
to rush pell NELL into the acceptance
of another which have a tendency to
aggravate present conditions.
MIR. Campfield says: IF you are I'M
able to agree on a franchise we sug-
gest that you let the bidders prepare
one and submit it for your approval"
Did you not have that opportunity
once? Did that franchise bear evidence
OF the kind consideration you now pro-
fess to have for the long suffering pub
lilo?
The protest against the profit shar-
ing scheme, assignment clauses, un-
fair control of bond issues and an I'M
fair inventory of the company's prop
erty and other unfair clauses, etc, etc
Mr.. Campfield should show where
the city means to be unfair. 1t Is I'M
fair to say: If you fail to comply with
the conditions set forth, the option
held by us will be assigned, and the
plant bought at it's valuation without
bonus or per cent. No value for the
unexpired term of the franchise to be
added to the valuation?
Is 1t unfair for the city to limit the
bond issue beyond a certain fixed
maximum?
Is it unfair for the city to safe
guard itself as contemplated Pun
chaser, against the issue of watered
stock to keep pace with the increased
valuation. made possible by unearned
increments, such as advances in land
values, prices, etc, ETC.?
Has the city no rights in return for
the free use of it's streets?
The limitations were not in the con-
tracts previously prepared by you and
the Richmond City Water Works,
(perhaps jointly yet these contracts
stand out as the most conspicuous at
tempt to rob the city, il not In rates