The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1913-02-24
The Palladium

In the Palladium of Friday evening,
February 21st, Mr.. e. M. Campfield
comes out in an interview, intimating
that his company is not "out of the
race for a water franchise: making
further statements that are so thor
oughly contrary to his former reasons
given for not bidding, as to suggest
his absolute unfitness to be taken SER
lousy.
Mr. Campbell, in his signed state
ment to the members of the Board of
Works giving his reasons why his COM
pany declined to bid, saying the five
years clause made it practically tena-
tive franchise and further pointed out
that such restrictions as the specifica-
tions contained made the contract un-
desirable and that his company did not
care to compete with these restric-
tons embodied.
What does Mr.. Campfield now say?
THE reason we did not submit a bid
when they were advertised for was
because learned from Fl. q. Johnson
representing the city, that no fran
chise would be given until after the
legislature had adjourned or taken
action of some kind on the public
utilities bill. and we did not want to
expose our hand" Another objection
able feature was the five year assign
ment clause" Either the signed state
ment to the board of works, or the
reasons given in the interview, con-
tains a misstatement, as does the
assignable feature, for the reason,
prior to advertising for bids the last
time the assignable feature clause had
been removed from the specification
and was no longer factor in the con-
sideration of the proposal.
Mr. Campfield further tries his mis-
leading tactics by pretending to be in
favor of the utilities bill" He says,
'In regard to the public utilities bill,
It will be just what the large corpora
tons want, and they will benefit by
1t rather than the people for whom
1t was instituted. The bill allows the
company to make eight per cent profit
and the Richmond City Water Works
has never made more than that; now
every time coal goes up the company
can invite commission to step in
and investigate their books and will
show them that they cannot make
eight per cent and the commission will
water. 1t practically gives the cor
poration a perpetual franchise and is
just what they want"
Now this statement contains only a
half truth. IF Mr.. Campfield could
have brought himself into telling the
whole truth regarding the utilities
bill' he would have said that the com
mission had the power to determine
the valuation on tangible assets only
and that eight per cent profits was
permissible on such tangible assets
I am satisfied that eight per cent or
the tangible assets of the Richmond
City Water Works would be less thar
four per cent on the present alleged
valuation. No one objects to eight pei
cent on it's physical value as represent
ed by actual investment
1t the large corporations are to be
the sole beneficiaries of the utilities
bill it seems strange that the corpora
tons should be found fighting the bill
and the organized professional lobby
maintained to defeat its effective fea
lures.
If the bill Is desirable to large cor
porations, why the mysterious substi
tute offered? I will tell you why. anC
il Mr. Campbell has given an,
thought TO the merits of the bill, h
will be stricken with a consciousness.
that he has not given a true version o
the meritorious features of the bill. bu
has eliminated and quoted such fea
lures as to rob the bill of its aetna
merits. That probably is as much a
could be expected.
The mysterious bill that the larg,
corporations actually offered as a sub
stitute did not require structural o
physical valuation by any mandate
though power was provided to az
praise and value; no provision wa
made that such valuation was to b.
used as the basis of adjudication an,
decisions as TO rates, but only in TIL
event of said utility being taken owe
by a municipality was If to be used
The mysterious bill that the "Iarg
corporations wanted. also eliminate,