Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1916-01-04
bs The ANSWER
fLES CONTRACT IN THE
xTER WORKS>CASE.
fearing Will Be Decided Up
kthin Short Time-Judge
kelly Will Preside.

Nearing Will be Decfueu up
Tkthin Short Time-Judge
Jelly Will Preside.
>|isfed with his original an
he complaint of ii. V. Gates
|&he Railroad commission Of
Ma the city of Dallas, to es-
Enership of the Dallas water
fty Attorney Ed. F. Coad has
amended answer to the com
'hich will be more apt to at
case in favor Of the city and
mission than would the orig
Ven. A date for the hearing
5sse of H. V. Gates VS.. the
{ Commission and the city of
municipal corporation, will
'the near future. Judge Kel-
! hear the evidence and has
the case in a prelimi-
The original complaint did
1rth all the facts in the case,
n been admitted as the city's
Ia would probably have been
III and the case would have
IN against the city, whereas
1icipality has a more fair
b view of the amended an
|Ase is one that has stirred
council and Mayor Kirkpat-
Zion. They saw where there
ossibilitS of being forced TO
Fnership of a public utility,
Her the terms of a legal con-
Flease, was owned by anoth-
period of 20 years. They also
" the city would in one way
right and title to the plant
pment after expending nearly
HI get it established here. On
DO of last year Mr.. Gates
70 against the Railroad com
nd the city of Dallas to de-
he ownership and the power
hmission to regulate its af-
4 rates. The city was in
|Athe suit to make it compul-
h it to observe any decree
|own. In his complaint. filed
Oscar Hayter for the Gates
4 Huston and Huston, Mr..
|<ged that the rate reducing
he Railroad commission was
because the city was the
u of the plant and equip
ID that the commission used
and erroneous methods in
ae plant and equipment. This
Twas ordered after the city
pkined to the commission
T. was operating a public util-
10 the rates he charged were
Reasonable and excessive. In
this complaint Mr.. Gates
charges and alleged that
las the owner of the plant.
commission made its valu-
ing the city interested f.
atfhe extent of $12,707.50
No the extent of $44.312.50,
valuation of $57,020.00.
ordered by the commission
e his rate schedule accord
pwes schedule provided by
Sion.
Fhen this order was issued
ates filed his original com
stablish right and title and
the ruling of the commits
alleged in that document |
|nluation of'his property was
q than was right and just,
q the amount should not be
"a ,292.50, depreciation con-
ID his statement he said that
be order would reduce his
fom the water system at
Ben cent. as the returns on
nent at that time were less
y cent. The prayer of the
was that the plaintiff be
owner of the plant and
/ and that the order of the
commission be annulled.
llroad commission, through
General Brown and C. B.
Of the counsel, answered
sint on July IL, 1915. admit
Bates constructed the plant,
own behalf rather than for
4 The answer alleged that
ID, managed and controlled
and equipment and prayed
pmplaint be set aside. Dc.
sum and substance Of this,
crneys replied to the answer
! admitting only that Gates
fhe plant. City Attorney
>ad filed an answer to the
/ for the city on July IL,
be city's answer it was ad-
y Gates built the plant TO
satisfaction of the city and
|as paid $4,000 when the
Is were accepted. 1t alleg-
|ates was owner, manager
[or of the plant and asked
issal of the complaint. This
frely lost sight of the fact
according to his contract
fty, was to own and oper-
.nt only during the term Of [
\ year lease which he had
- by the city. This was
mistake that City Attor-
reetifed in his amended