Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1913-11-12
|PASSUMPSIC co. REACHED
CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE


Mr. 'Longley, auditor for the New
England company. testified about the
purpose and sales of properties in the
Passumpsic territory. On May l.
1907, the Passumpsic Telephone COM
pany bought of the New England
Telephone & Telegraph company
properties in Newport. Lyndon. ST.
Johnsbury and dozen other towns in
that vicinity and paid $3.50. $50 in
common stock issued to the amount of
$3.50. $50, on which no dividend has
been paid since organization.
On December 30, 1910. it bought
the Vermont Peoples Telephone com.
pany of Orleans and paid $4,000,
divided into 100000 in preferred stock
and $32, 900 in cash for stock taken by
the New England company.
On May A. 1911, it bought the Essex
Telephone company of Island Pond and
vicinity and paid for it with $500
preferred stock of the PassumpSic
company, $500 in common stock and
81, 500 IN cash furnished by the New
England company, which took pre-
ferred stock in the Passumpsc Tele-
phone company. under permission of
the Vermont public service commission.
On May l. 1912. it bought the
Citizens Telephone company of ST.
Johnsbury and vicinity for Sal. 250 for
cash and money was furnished by New
England Telephone company, which
took stock in the Passumpsic Tele-
phone company. No "going concern"
values appeared in the appraisals made
| by Mr.. Haggerman.
On May l, 1912, it bought the plant
of ID. l.. Mcclure in Hardwick. Crafts
bury and vicinity for SIS, 500 cash.
On Nov. Is, 1912, was bought poles
and current outside of Newport and
Troy on the Canadian line for 81, 1876. so
for cash.
On April II, 1913, was bought of R.
Q. Buchanan the Greensboro and
Glover company, for 81, $50 in cash.
! On April II. 1913. was bought the
pay station at Craftsbury of the
Citizens Telephone company for
SILT.
company part of the Mcclure plants
at Hardwck. Wolcott and Craftsbury
for SIP, $1,000.
The net earnings by years were
given as follows: For 1907, S4,514.98
on property valued at S150,O0
For 1908, 1872 16 on $3.50, 900 worth
of property. 1t further appeared that
there was really a net loss this year
of S4, 422. 82, which left in the surplus
account only $685.
In 1909, the earnings were swal-
lowed up by expenses and no profits
: were shown on property valued al
$154, 36410.
In 1910. the loss was $3.50. %, or
, an investment of 1921. 838. Al.
In 1911, the profits were 81 1852. Is,
on property amounting to $248, 695. O4.
, In 1912, the net income was $11. 1853
W, on average assets amounting tt
| 1886, 217.87.
: The amount of Indebtedness out
standing June 80, 1913. 1928, 727. II
The amount laid by as depreciation
reserve as of the same date was
the preceding year, and the explana
ton for the smaller figure was the
construction of new switchboard a
ST. Johnsbury
The new additions made to tht
T Passumpsic property from 1907 were
1 given in detail and amounted t.
5 $50, 438. a.
At one point in the proceedings
when the Passumpsic company wa
2 under fire. Mr.. Pollard, a member O.
4 the commission asked what proved tt
i be perpleXing question. He querie;
S Mr.. Longley as to the significance o
+, the fact that although the Passumpsi
! company earned but 1921 in 1908
: nothing in 1909, $3.50 % in 1910, 1912. L
: IN 1911 yet they were constantly add
ing to their plant during this time a
L a cost of many thousands of dollars.
q Mr.. Jones suggested that no depre
citation was set aside during thes
n years.
/, Commissioner Pollard then asked i
Mr.. Longley thought it good policy t.
continue to add to the company
plant when the property was bein
operated at loss or a trivial prOfit o.
the investment
He received no answer other tina
. the suggestion by Mr.. Jones that tn
= increased earnings in the last tw
= years shown in the statement woul
= show clearly that the policy was
. good one.
- Considerable time was given to som
" discussion as to whether ''going cor
= Germ value" a rather mysterious bu
E important item. should be considere
;, in valuation of the property AS Nj
q e Graham read decision in the low
Il =. reports of the Cedar Rapids Ga
T. company VS.. Cedar Rapids. this iter
II OF Vaiue should be excluded, but a
- Counsel Jones for the telephone CON
. pany read more fully from that sam
{ case. it seemed to be the intention c
- the court to recognize and include il
= The commission finally decided to pu
= the report in evidence and construe
;, for itself later on.
= "Going concern valuation; cost t
! establish the business. but not carrie
on the hooks of the cOmoanv S,1nmitte
during hearing:
New England Tel. & Tel Co.,
including all Vermont
:, subsidiary companies $3.50 OJo Q
. Champlain Valley Tel. Co %. 800. {
a. Franklin County Tel Co. 15.9OO.(
y y Passumpsic Tel. Co. SO, 900. {
a. Counsel for the telephone compan
~ allege that the ''going concern" ite
: does not include good will or franchis,
u, -, but the cost to establish the business
ie Later in the hearing the telephor