The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1912-09-09
The Palladium 3:

LAC L cll6QluHl.
The absorbent character of the
present political situation, is, l am
somewhat afraid, detracting the at
tention of the press from local is
sues of vital Importance. The events
OF the past week suggest that the
work in connection with the water
works franchise must not be relaxed
or ere many days it will have reced-
ed back to the conditions very little
better than those of the company's
first proposal.
There is no great cause for COM
plant in the removal of the profit
sharing clause as ii was framed, for
it can be demonstrated to a mathe-
NAUTICAL certainty that the city never
could receive a dollar in the form of
profits in excess of 6 per cent, basing
the necessary earnings to pay said
profits on the present valuation.
There is cause for complaint, how
ever, in the city relinquishing her
rights to free water privileges.
The intention to SO relinquish is the
more amazing, seeing it emanates
from the city officials without a sug-
gestion from the water works COM
| pany.
! The idea of such a proposal being
made with the end in view of bring
ing down the cost Of water to the
consumer, does not hold good. The
former proposal is all that is neces-
sary to prove that fact, for they pro-
RI or
| privileges in that proposition, yet rails
ed the cost of water to the consumer
one and sixteenth cents a thousand
gallons. l feel justified in asking, and
| the public is entitled to know, why
this proposal to forfeit free water priv
| ileges was made. Has the administra-
| ton any assurance from the compel
ing companies that the equivalent to
the free water used will be given to
the consumers in general? Will the
reduction given be a just return for
the sacrifice the city is making?
Let me demonstrate what I mean by
sacrifice:
The Richmond City Water Works
claim to have perpetual franchise II
they are sustained in that claim it
| will be on the construction of section
81 of the ordinance of 1885 and the
amended ordinance, Sec. 6, of 1892,
which says:-"And all rights and priv
ileges herein granted to the city, Of
water for the use of the city, citizens,
and the public, Free of Cost, shall
continue free and without cost during
all the time said company, its sue
cessors or assigns, shall hold or ex-
ercise any rights or privileges within
said city, now granted by this ordin-
ance"
If the Richmond City Water Works
can be sustained in their claim that
they hold a perpetual franchise. the
court so sustaining must concede that
the city also holds perpetual free wa
ter privileges as both claims are COW
cred by the same section.
| Would it not have been more like
business to withhold any such inten-
tons to forfeit said rights, until after
bids had been submitted? A chance to
see what the consumers were profit
ing by the forfeiture would be posi-
BILE if such a course had been adopted.
The present franchise expires Sept.
21st, 1912. Bids are not yet adver-
tised for. The question will not be
settled before the present franchise
| Tor contract) expires. To the mem
bers of council and the city admins
tration l want to give a word of warn
ing. TAKE NO CHANCES: Prepare
resolution extending the time of the
present franchise until the present
proposal is whipped in line and made
acceptable both as to conditions and
rates. The courts have decided in
other states that private company
operating and exercising its franchise
privileges after the contract expires
and before another is granted acquires
by so operating and exercising, a per
petual franchise. BEWARE!
Yours truly,
| A. Bavis,
All N. 18th st.