The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1916-08-03
BAvIS PLAN
(Continued From Page one.)

laundries. leo plants, Y. NJ. c, A., Earl.
ham college. Only two buildings on
Main street would be affected by such
an order, the Westcott Hotel company
and the Colonial building. We take it
that they would naturally protest
against such an increase Of 33 per
cent in the water rates.
The II other consumers who would
make up the balance are Earlham col.
lege, Y. NJ. c. A, Richmond Baking
Co., Reliance Foundry, Maher &
Davenport, C. & O. railroad, Penrsyl.
vania railroad, Westcott hotel, Lemon
e Co. Independent Ice Co., Stole &
Son, Bullerdick & Backmeyer, Auto
matte Tool Co., Richmond Union Laun-
dry, Western Ohio Creamery, Home
Laundry, Colonial building.
The largest Of these consumers Is
the Pennsylvania railroad company,
which exceeds $1,000 per month. If it
is true as 1t has been said if their
rates would be increased they would
be justified in installing their own
+ plant, then it would be necessary in
order to retain this business to in
crease the rate about so per cent on
the other &c and what do you suppose
the consumers would say about this
time?
Can there be any reasonable argu-
ment made why these 81 firms in
stalling private fire protection should
pay a penalty Of $1,000 annually for
putting In this protection at their own
expense; of If we accept Mr.. Bavis'
suggestion Of penalizing those who do
( not install 1t by adding so per cent
to their annual water bills. Can the
. Y. NJ. C. A., Earlham college and the
laundries better afford to pay than
other consumers?
II the income is just, and it is so
accepted by the city then 1t should
see that the burden Of the increase is
equally distributed.
7 1t Is plainly evident that the ar
rangement proposed by Bavis Is wholly
, impractical. We still can see no reason
why any one class Of consumers
should bear this whole burden. Either
there should be revision affecting all
consumers or else the city should as
sumo a part OF this SO that the burden
may not be on any one class.
The magazine entitled Fire Protect
ion" published in Cincinnati and hav-
ing very wide circulation has devot-
ed an editorial on the Richmond
Water case as follows:
The decision Of the Indiana Public
Service Commission, recently handed
down in the Richmond water case, to
increase water rates for fire protect
Ion to insist on the metering Of fire
service supplies and to eliminate a
minimum charge for such service ex-
cept monthly imposition based on
the size of the meter places a heavy
burden on Indiana manufacturers and
others dependent in large or small de-
grees on sprinkler protection. These
specific rates apply only in Richmond,
Of course, but the principle Is appli.
cable throughout the state and in view
of the drastic ruling in the Richmond
case there can be no doubt that the
commission will apply it In other cities
as opportunity may offer. The decis-
ion seems to have been wholly predi
Gated on the assumption that the
water company was unable at existing
rates to earn sufficient dividends for
its stockholders. AS to levy increased
charges on other private or domestic
consumers would arouse their antagon-
ism, owners of buildings, plants and
mercantile establishments with sprink-
Ter OF standpipe equipment were Sc
lected as the goats" and the burden
put on them Though the justice of
this action is open to question there
can be no doubt as to its expediency."