Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-06-04

The difference IN srinion between the
public service COMM ssion of Indiana and
the Indiana Bell Telephone Company as
to the value of the telephone properties
in Indiana formerly owned by the Cen
trHl Union Telephone Company may be
expected to form one of the interesting
features of the telephone rate. hearing
when it comes M before the public serv-
commission of Indiana, June n.
The date of the hearing was tentative
ly set by the commission today.
The Indiana Bell Telephone Company
in a petition fled with the public service
commission relative TO the purchase Of
the Central Unions properties in the
state, with the exception of certain prop
erty at Terre Haute SET forth that it.
proposed to pay for the physical prop
cries Of the Central Union ST. 40, 100,
plus the cost OF all net additions since
October 81, 1919, and to take the prop
erty subject to the lien Of S549.S 500 out
standing and secured by mortgage on
part Of the property. the total Of the two
items being S1S0o0,O0o
DOES NOT COMMIT
SELF on S1S,OOO.oOO.
In approving the sale Of the property
of the Central Union Telephone Company
10 the Indiana Bell Telephone Company,
Tefrained from committing itself relative
to that S1s,0O0,OOO, and stated that in
approving the terms that had been
agreed upon by the two telephone com
psnies as representing for the purposes
Of this cause the fair and reasonable
value of the property, the commission
did not in any way bind itself to ap-
prove the method by which the consider
alton was calculated or agreed upon, or
to recognize such consideration as the
value Of the property IN any rate case
- any other proceeding affecting the
public interest, nor should such con-
sideration be binding upon the Indiana
Bell Telephone Company in any subse-
auent proceedings before the commission
in which the value Of the property In
question may become material.
In the opinion and order Of the pub
lie service commission fixing rates for
the Central Union Telephone Company
at exchanges in Indiana, approved Feb
g, 1920. the following tentative estimates
were placed upon the property Of the
Central Union Telephone Company In
Indiana:
Indiana toll system. &. sol .31s; Alex
sndria- S47,231; Bedford. S157. SOS; Bloom
ington. s21s,S2o; Boggstown. Sill O55 .
Brooklyn, S15.3S5; Bunker Hill. 500 42S A.:
Culver s4O.0o6; EIwood. S176.4JT: Fair
land, S7.434: French Lick. $50. 49e; Gas
City, S54. as; Greenwood. S45.2IS: Wash
lngton, S29s $50; yorktown. SO Dis; Indi-
annapolis. Sc, 400. EST; Anderson. SISs 19s .
Auburn, STA. 797; Charlottesville. 1913
1875; Frankfort, s197, EOS Kendallville.
A20.T72; Mishawaks, 500. $50; Muncie.
e654- 234; Peru, S515, 99T. sheIbyville, S168.
t37; South Bend, s1.5o6. 42e; yineeHnes.
s2S5. 094; Newcastle, s16S $50: Granger.
E5.491; Lewisville, s16.869 Manila, 8.423 A.:
New Carlisle. $50 $50; osceola, s15540
Rome City, 81 351; Cumberland. Sl2a1s
Smith Valley, $7.45a, making a total Of
n5TTSA12.
VALUE INQUIRY
NOT COMPLETED.
In this same opinion and order Of the
commission # was stated. under the
head OF finding Of tentative values. .
that by reason of the inability Of the
star to make complete appraisals OF all
OF the petitioners property. thus az
fordtng more complete evidence, and the
necessity Of early hearings. several cities
were prevented from making desired In
vestigations as TO values
The commission believes, therefore.
that II Is Unwise IN these cases finally to
FIX the value Of petitioners property.
1T will be understood. therefore, that
IN each Of the cases now under cousid-
Grafton, the commission VIII fix tenta-
tive values, which viii be used only for
the purpose of the particular ses now
before the commission.
The tentative values used although
100000 less than claimed by petitioner.
ere HbeEaL|
A list was then given. in the report.
Of the tentative estimates Of the com
pany~s property value in the various cities
end towns. as already set forth. and il
Was added that these values are not to
be considered as permanently fixed"
The final finding Of the fair value Of
these properties, IL was explained. was
continued for further and future consid-
erahOn-
Il further WIS explained that the valu-
aticns as 70 Granger, I.ewfsville. Manila
New Carlisle. Osceola, Rome City. Cum
ber4Rnc and Smith Valley were estimated
that there had been no apPraisals by
company or commission.