Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-08-30

plcatin of the corporation organized
under the voluntary association law
would be valid and worthless"
With these points as a start the attor-
neys argued at length as to whether
the public service commission act gives
the commission right to give a corpora
ton power which it does not already
have.
Following the argument the commits
sion announced it would hold against the
respondents.
Motion to dismiss was made formally
yesterday in behalf of the city Of In
dianapolis, the city Of Kokomo, the city
Of Elkhart, and a number of Indianapolis
power users. The entire afternoon was
taken up with arguments on the mo-
ton.
The motion was based on the following
contentious:
/. That the petitioner is not pub
lie utility.
2. That the petitioner does not own
nor operate public utility.
s. That the petitioner has no prop
erty nor assets.
William L. Taylor, representing Indi-
annapolis power users. in opening his
argument on the motion declared that
for these reasons the commission has no
ties by the petitioner.
HAS 1000 CAPITAL,
WANTS SCI 900 900.
This IS a queer sort Of company"
Mr. Taylor said In a sense 1t is a
holding company. but holding companies
can not exist under the Indiana law.
This is a puny little company with only
$4,000 Of capital stock authorized. but
it comes before this commission for per
mission TO issue more than $21, 900 600 in
securities There is no suggestion in
the petition Of a plan to erect a power
: plant. According to the petition, not
one cent Of these bonds is TO go FOR the
/ erection Of a power plant
This organization is not a public
utility. There is no allegation that It is
utility and until It is q utility and
has property it can not issue stocks and
bonds under the public utility act. This
company has no property on which 70
issue stocks and bonds They simply
, plan to come out of the blue sky and
, to start the presses going printing stocks
and bonds"
Commissioner McCsrdle asked whar
would be the difference between a CITY
buying a plant and the corporation buy
ing a plant Mr.. Taylor answered By
saying that a city could erect a PLAN
3ir. McCardle pointed out thae the com
mission never considers stock and bond;
Ia making rates.
How would the public be hurt II
the compsny Is not bonded above tbs
value Of the property ii intends TO buy 2
j Commissioner Edgar Blessing asked
{ Because" Mr.. Taylor replied, II all
these plants are together this city would
J have TO suffer with the others involved
j and the others with US. The commits
sion has no authority to segregate the
/ securities TO individual utilities. You
/ have no right TO allocate these bonds
aud stocks. That is my chief objection
to this case"
The commission will never made a
uniform rate to apply to ali these
places Mr. McCardle declared Every
property Will stand alone. What obJec-
tlon would you have if this means a
lower rate?"
These people don't need a guardian -
, Mr.. Taylor declared. They expect to
get higher rates. Either the holders OF
their securities viii be swindled or the
public viii have TO bear the burden. 4
b pure blue sky company has no right to
90 ahead and issue bonds"
MUST APPLY TO
SECRETARY or STATE.
Samuel Ashby. speaking for the motion
then raised a point which possibly ere
! 3 dltQ more OF a SUR LUdu any arg
. that had been put forth. He declared
B the company could not issue more stock
than authorized by its articles of incor-
, poration unless more is authorized
through the action Of the iDcorporators
fling such intention with the secretary
+ of State in the regular way
Fred Bates Johnson, representing the
city Of Kokomo. declared the law under
which the action is brought applies only
to the issuance OF securities by utilities
} already IL existence and that the electric
corporation is not q utility in any sence
OF the word He referred to the admis
sion Of Charles Mcpherson. counsel for
petitioner, earlier in the day that the
company il not a public utility.
Commissioner Barnard broke into the
: argument with the contention that the
various utilities may sell to the electric
corporation under section % of the utili-
ties act
They have the right to sell to any one
authorized 20 buy, but this corporation /:
not authorized to buy" Mr. johnson re,
) piled.
} You have been trying to call this
hing a straight out purchase when IN
lact it is a purchase and SALE Mr. Bar.
nard said.
Commissioner Blessing declared he
disagreed with the admission Of counsel
for petitioner that the petitioning com
pany is not public utility,
, J. w. Fesler. an attorney for petitioner
. declared that for the purpose Of this case
the company is not public utility. He
cited the statutes under which he said
. the company is bringing the action and
declared that it is understood securities
will be issued under the supervision OF
the public service commission.
HARD TO GIVE
CITIES SEPARATE RATES.
w. z. Wider, mayor Of Elkhart, de-
, manded to know how the plan applied
to the Elkhart company, which is a gas
company. He repeated the arguments OF
Mr.. Ashby that the company would have
to 20 through a stock increase authorize
ton before it could increase it's capital
stock. He declared it virtually will be
impossible to give each city a separate
rate
Il know the commission wants to do
this but 1t win be all mighty hard to
do" he said.
The arguments for the petition were
then repeated in a general way by coun-
sci for respondents and the commission
adjourned without ruling.