The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1916-08-30

mission. How consistent in his state
ments! What credence can be placed
upon the testimony Of such witness?
Absolutely none. We are at loss to
understand how 1t is possible for the
commission to consider the testimony
Of such an egotistical sophist-one.
who by his manner and method re-
CARDS all others as fools or idiots, and
he the sole possessor of knowledge and
wisdom. In our opinion he is I'M
worthy Of belief, as 1t seems plain he
does not care for the truth but only
desires to be sensational and to testi-
fy according to the pecuniary compen-
sation received
We do not regard It as necessary
to analyze the testimony Of this wit
ness In order to determine its utter
unreliability, as the record will no
doubt be carefully considered by the
commission before rendering its de-
cision.
Historical Statement.
We do not regard that any facts
which may be stated, giving the his
tory OF this plant adds anything to its
value in serving the public, and yet
the petitioner has evidently attempted
to immpress the commission with the
hardships through which this plant abs
passed and is now passing, and its
great desire to serve the public as ele,
ments to be considered in arriving at
the value Of its property for rate
making purposes. We insist, however,
that If history Is to be written it shall
state the truth and not delve into the
realm of speculation and conjecture.
It Is true that this utility, when it
commenced to operate its artificial
gas plant, was without any competi-
tor in this city. Afterward, about the
year 1886. it had competitor, the
Richmond Natural Gas company, which
served natural gas until the year 1910,
but we understand that during all this
period was not operating at
a loss, but was making & reason
able income upon the money
which 1t had invested in its prop
erty. Afterward and in the year
about 1902, the city of Richmond
became a competitor of the petitioner
in this case In the service of electrical
energy. This, however, was no fault
OF the city but solely on account OF
the arbitrary action of the utility it.
self. Prior to that time the utility
had a contract with the city to light
it's streets and other public places, and
prior to the time that this contract
expired the city endeavored to renew
the same upon better terms, but the
utility, acting as though the city would
be compelled to take it's electrical en-
ergy at any price which 1t might name.
refused to make what the city deemed
to be fair and just contract. Besides,
the petitioner at that time was charg-
ing as high as fourteen cents per kllo-
watt for private lighting, and Its gen.
eral schedule of rates being, IN the
opinion of the city and its inhabitants,
excessive and exorbitant and the same
greatly in excess of the same kind OF
service that was being furnished in
and to cities of similar size and sltua-
ton. Besides, the petitioner, during
the days when it had monopoly OF the
gas and electrical business in the city,
absolutely and positively in a great
many instances refused to furnish cleo
trical energy for lighting, but instead,
demanded that it's artificial gas should
be used for that purpose, thus COM
pelling many of the business men or
our city to use artificial gas for light
ing instead of furnishing them with
the more modern electric lighting priv
ileges. These and many other consld'
erations which need not be now men
toned, caused such a prejudice to
arise against this utility that sent1-
ment became almost unanimous that
the city should build and own an cleo
trio lighting and power plant Itself,
and the question OF the city entering
into the electrical business was sub
mitted to a vote of the people and the
same carried nearly six to one, and the
CITY afterward built and equipped It's
electric light and power plant, and
thereafter until it purchased the elec-
trical property of this uti.iss-.. yac -
competition herewith At times this
competition was fierce and furious,
each plant striving to obtain and retain
all the business possible. But 1t is
undoubtedly true that the city had a
legal right to build its electric light
plant for the purpose of lighting its
streets and furnishing electrical en-
ergy to it's inhabitants, and we can see
no reason why any added value should
now be given to the natural gas prop
erty of this utility because, by its
high-handed methods, it compelled the
city, for its own self-protection tol
enter into competition with it in the
electrical business.
On the other hand, during all the
time that this utility was in compe-
tition with the Richmond Natural Gas
company, so far as we know, not a
single objection was made thereto,
and in view of the fact that 1t passed
through those years in successful COM
petition with the natural gas plant, it |
surely ought to have been able to
pass through the present years sue
cessfully in competition with the ma
tural gas service.
In the purchase by the city of the
electrical property of this utility it |
was paid every dollar which the COM
mission fixed as the fair value there
of, as well as taking into consideration |
the severance of the electric and gas