South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1917-06-21
MRS. RUPEL IN
NEW TESTIMONY
Declares Main Should Be Laid
as Far as Ewing
Avenue.

Testimony 20 uphold her petition
10 have city water installed for resi-
dents Of Ewing az. was offered by
Mrs. William Eupel a04 s. Lafay
cite ST. Wednesday afternoon, when
heated controversy between prin-
cipals marked the hearing before
Edwin Corr. member Of the Indiana
public service commission
Service or saving?" briefly sums
up yelled question of the petition
and direct questions hurled at the
water department OF the board Of
works by Francis +. Lam bert. coun-
sci for the petitioner. Atty. Lambert
in addition 20 bringing out important
evidence by direct examination Of
witnesses. made "A short bur impress
sive summary 20 close his case
Granted that there are "a other
petitioners for water mains I'm this
city and that the approximate cost
would be $71.S16 as Mr.. Morris
claims" he said, "f still contend that
this case is an exceptional one in
that the particular properties effect
ed BY this petition have no water for
domestic and sprinkling use They
were deprived OF water from their
wells through the installation Of the
Bowman ST sewer Sanitary and
health conditions demand that these
residents have water. In the many
other cases where neighborhoods
have petitioned for mains the con-
ditions are different They were not
deprived ot the use of their wells
through action Of the city and they
have access to other water
Evade 10 Percent Provision.
Testimony of John w Toyne.
superintendent of water works. de-
veloped the fact that the board has
installed mains. in vicinities where
sanitary and health conditions de
Fnanded them. without the usual
guarantee OF 10 percent revenue of
the cost OF installation.
Presenting the case Of the local
board +. W. Morris, president said
that for many years il has been a
rule OF the board that before any
mains were laid. benehciaries were
compelled 10 agree 10 pay a revenue
Of 10 percent OF the cost of the in
stalIation. lie said that the board
held strictly 10 this rule In all in
stances and showed plainly by his
statements that the board felt
chagriued az being brought before
the state service body.
Lambert i'm Reply.
Atty. Lambert replied TO this by
citing law 10 the effect that no pub
lie service board OF any city has au-
thority 10 fix certain amount to be
paid for such work. He then declar-
ed that the case in question is one
that should be given special atten-
ton because Of the circumstances
a precedent OF much Importance
will be given in the finding % the
state board on the petition flied by
Mrs RupeI. 10 is the contention OF
the petitioner and those directly in
terested with her that the water de-
partment OF the board of public
works has maintained arbitrary
rules that have been a hindrance to
the enforcement OF health rules and
sanitary conditions, especially in the
sparsely settled sections OF South
Bend In fact the petition is the out
growth or that contention.
Denies Refused.
IN its answer 20 Mrs. Rupers pc
tition the city, through the water
board declares that IL has not re-
fused. but has offered 10 make in
stallation petitioned for ION the
same basis on which all new install
lations are being and have been in
stalled without discrimination This
basis Is the principle objection OF
the petitioner who declares that the
payment OF 10 per cent Of the cost
OF the main. required OF the prop
erty owners. is not only unjust. but
merely a ruling OF the board with a
view OF saving money rather THAI
giving public service.
Facts Brought out.
Following are some Of the inter
esting facts and figures brought out
at the hearing
There are about 1900 actual
water accounts for South Bend
The total earnings OF the water
company for the year ending Jan. I.
1917. were s122.226.37. The total
cost was $14o.O7s.72 Deficit. ST.
S5S.5B
The limit OF the bonded Indebted
ness OF South Bend is S122.OOO. Of
which $50. Geo Is out, leaving the
limit for future use. $4,000.