Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1913-03-01

10 determine the loss OF over Is. coo !.
400 gallons OF water which the com.
pany seemed unable 10 account for
me expert was asked whether in his
judgment the rates charged BY the
i'isbee Naco Water company were
Just and equitable. he replied tina;
they were subject TO re-aijustment.
Mr.. Fitzgerald, cashier and book.
keeper Tor the company. was then
called to the stand 10 show his ac
counts. From these II appeared thai
a larger depreciation had been Made
~ the company on certain units of its
plant than the state was asking for
and to which the company and all it's
experts had strongly objected.
A. w Han, an engineer from Doug.
las. was then called 20 testify in be.
half OF the company as 10 efficiency
OF its plant. lie showed that some
of the units which had received a
large depreciation by the state experq
were practically new and in good
running order. He also showed that
several other items OF machinery
which amounted to considerable IN
placing a proper valuation upon the
plant, were totally ignored Dy the ex.
pert for the state, who gave credit
Tor only such machinery as was i'm ac
lual use by the company.
Another expert for the companv
recommended the collection of met.
er deposits and argued that il was nm.
lair 70 the company to be obliged to
base its returns on the present re
production value. owing to the great
difference in price paid 10. material
today and that paid ten years ago.
he also allowed a>going value of t-TiI
per cent. which he considered 20 be
a conservative amount. lie also ar.
gued as 10 the efficiency Of the plant
which he said was giving satisfactory
service and that the plant OF the Bis
bee Naco Water company could moi
be operated in 50 per cent efficiency.
which the expert under his theoretical
depreciation gave t. II such condi.
ton were true, he argued. consider
able money would have to be ex-
pended to bring the plant up TO the
efficient condition allowing good ser
vice. He said that il WIS his expert
ence that at least so 10 IS or even a
higher percentage of efficiency was
necessary to operate the plant to ad-
vantage. In this h differed greatly
with the expert for The state. who
argued that water plant could. be |
efficiently operated with only fifty per
cent of efficiency. From this he at /
tempted to show the injustice of the |
straight line method OF depreciation |
as according 10 that theory the plant |
could never be in a 100 per cent con |
tition The expert also recommended |
hat a minimum charge SHOULD be |
made in all equity To the company.
Jwing TO the conditions under which |
they are Obliged to operate.
Mr.. LeGrande, of Douglas. consult
ne engineer for the Phelps-DOdge in !
erests appeared before the commits
zion 20 testify as to the cost of OBJ
aiming water for the company should
hey decide to Withdraw as consum.
RS of the Bisbee Naco water com
Jany. Such action would be injurious
o all parties concerned. Il was con
'eded by both the lawyers for the
tate and those for the defense. as
{ would Becessitate a higher rate OF
'sturn on the investment OF the com.
amy. The engineers. however, ad.
nitted that il would cost the Phelps
Dodge interests more for their water
we're they to put in their own pump
ng plant than il now costs TO obtain
I from the company. L. %. Mason,
Mr.. Read, the manager, and w. II.
3rophy were called to the stand la
err in the evening. Their testimony,
.onfirming figures and documents in
reduced in behalf of the company as
authentic, close the proceedings.