The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1915-06-15

CHAIRMAN Duncan IN announcing
the overruling of the resolution said
that two members of the commission
did not agree on the question OF
whether the city. by irstituting con-
demnation proceedings for the ac-
quirement OF the electric plant Of the
competing company. had actually
bound itself irrevocably to purchase
it.
Theory Of Commission.
Although no explanation was offer
ed by the commission it was believed
that 1t will not seek to interpret the
law relating to the requirement by mu-
inequalities, through condemnation. Of
privately owned utilities, leaving this
to be determined by the courts
Strength was lent to this theory by
Chairman DuDcan's announcement
that If it was eventually determined
that the city was not obligated to the
purchase of the plant the evidence OBJ
tained through the medium of the hear
ing now in progress would be used
for the purpose of readjusting electric
rates in Richmond.
protest was entered by the attor-
neys of the Light. Heat and Power
company to the overruling Of the
Beasley resolution and was made a
matter of record. Beasley also an.
nounced that all evidence to be intro
duced would be under protest. but the
company would insist that it be util-
lied by the commission for the read
justment Of electric rates in Richmond,
In the event its electric plant was not
taken over by the city, and for the re-
adjustment OF natural gas rates.
Although it had been generally un.
derstood that City Attorney Bond was
to employ legal talent to assist him in
the conduct of this case. he was the
only attorney to appear before the
commission as a representative of the
city. He appeared to be wholly un.
prepared to conduct the case and the
commissioners had to wait almost an
hour for Mr.. Bond to present his ar.
guments, causing Chairman Duncan to
inquire of him, quite caustically. what
he was waiting for and to remark that
the proceedings were progressing
slower than a divorce trial.
The first witness called was Chief
Engineer Garman of the state COM
mission. and he caused a genuine sen.
sation by testifying that in his opinion
the valuation Of plant for the pur-
pose of sale should be lower than a
plant valuation for rate making pur-
poses. This testimony appeared to
greatly agitate Commissioners Duncan
and Murphy and for over a half hour
they submitted him to a cross-fire Of
questions. apparently for the purpose
of breaking down the position he had
taken on this question. Garman held
staunchly to his theory. however, and
shortly before the noon hour the COM
missioners decided to take a recess
and resume the hearing at 1:S0
o'clock with Garman on the witness
stand again.
| The valuation which the commits
sion engineers had established for the
electric plant Of the Light, Heat and
Power company for rate making pur-
poses was S161, 500. City officials have
anticipated the valuation OF the plant
for sale purposes would be at least
100000, while the Light, Heat and
Power officials have been claiming q
still higher sale valuation. Conse-
quently Mayor Robbins. Mr.. Bavis. Mr..
Bond and Mr.. Kleinknecht, who at
| tended the hearing. were as much sur
prised over the statement made by
Garman as the Light, Heat and Power
company representatives were.
| Attorneys representing the Light,
Heat and Power company before the
commission today were John Beasley,
i Wilfred Jessup of Richmond. and
George H. Olney and George H. Tripp
Of New York.