The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1915-02-26
Editor Palladium:

| AI0IIoi
1t is very seldom that I undertake
to correct newspaper articles although
l am more often misquoted than
quoted correctly, but your editorial in
yesterdays issue entitled, Light Plant
Depreciation Fund.-" is SO extremely
misleading SO far as my position is
concerned. that I deem it proper to
state the facts.
| 1t was never my contention that ex-
tensions should be provided for out of
the depreciation fund, and if you re-
ceived such impression it eminated
from some one else. l do believe, how
ever, that proper depreciation fund
should be provided for the light plant,
in fact, this should have been done
long ago, and when provided, the stat
ute plainly says for what purposes this
fund can be expended.
| Permit me to call your attention to
certain sections of the Shiveley-Spen-
Ger Utility Commission Act, as enacted
DY the 1913 legislature, Acts 1913, Page
l76. After first providing that every
public utility shall carry proper and
adequate depreciation account when
ever the commission after investiga-
ton shall determine that such depre-
citation account can be reasonably re-
quired." Section % provides how this
fund shall be expended, and reads as
follows:
section 25-All money thus provid-
ed for shall be set aside out Of the
earnings and carried in a depreciation
fund. The moneys in this fund may
be expended for new constructions. ex-
tentions or additions to the property
Of such public utility or invested. and
if invested. the income from the invest
! ment shall also be carried in the de-
probation fund. This fund and the
proceeds thereof, shall be used for no
other purposes than as provided in this
section and for depreciation. But in
no event shall the moneys expended
from the fund for new constructions,
extensions or additions to the prop
erty be credited to or considered part
of the capital account of any public
utility. but shall always be charged
against the deDreciation fund"
did not make this law and whether
or not it is based on sound economic
principles or founded in wisdom is not
now the question: it stands as the
law and in the performance of my Off
cial duties as city attorney I cannot
! give advice as to what the law should
be- but I endeavor to ascertain what
the law really is and to give advice &C
cordingly. 1t would not change this
statute if T should read any of the
good works on the science of econo-
mics" to which you refer, neither
would such reading aid in interpreting
the law
! Your proposition that, This fund
should be for just one purpose, provii-
ing for the replacement Of buildings.
machinery, lines etc, as they wear out
! and need renewal" is contrary to the
| statutory provision: hence, your o.
, lection should be to the statute and
not to the fact that while considering
the question of a depreciation fund l
stated what the statutory provisions
are in regard thereto. | did not at
tempt to give my opinion but only sta
ted what the law is upon this subject,
and this statute does provide that "the
moneys in this fund may be expended
for new construction. extensions or adj
ditions to the property of such public
utility" and if expended for any such
purpose it shall not be considered a
part of the capital account OF such
public utility. In fact, the theory OF
the law is that none of the money put
into the depreciation fund shall ever
thereafter be capitalized. regardless of
whether or not it is used for the up
keep Of the existing plant or expended
for new constructions, extensions OR
additions, and I agree with this theory
upon the proposition among others
that having once taken this money
from the consumers it shou not in
justice be capitalized against them,
and am not familiar with any recog-
nized authority, legal or otherwise,
that sustains contrary position.
Thus you will plainly see that 1t Is
the laws declaration and not my con-
4