Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-09-01
SNAG STRUCK
IN PROPOSED
MERGER PLAN

CONTINUED From Page One)
finance a large development If this de-
velopment will make a profit"
VIII this project involve additional
burdens on the present property" Mr..
Barnard asked.
No." Mr.. Mcpherson replied.
In opening his argument Mr.. Ashby
said the public utilities law was enacted
for the purpose Of protecting the pub
lie against watered stock and securities.
He declared the purpose and theory of
the law is that securities must be is
sued no more than the full value Of
the property, and added there is no ne
cessity for the proposed securities Issue.
TALK VALUATIONS IN
FINAL ARGUMENTS.
you don't think the commission would
authorize any common stock without
property back Of it," Mr.. Barnard asked.
II do not" Mr. Ashby said
Mr.. Ashby then went into the valua-
tons - properties.
Mr.. 'he rson, In opening the argu
ment T tie petitioner, confined himself
to the mater Of valuation. He charac-
terized the 7sluations given by Harry o.
Gnrman, chief engineer for the commits
sion, as valleiess and said while he did
not contend he petitioners valuations
as fixed standard, they were the best
evidence.
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
LATE WEDNESDAY.
The presentation of evidence was CON
cludec Wednesday afternoon with the
testimony Of Charles Mcpherson. attorney
for the petitioner, who was called as a
witness by the respondents. He was sum
moned for the purpose of presenting evil
dence concerning options that have been
taken In behalf OF the electric corporation
interests on the stock of some OF the
companies to be purchased.
During the course OF the examination
Of Mr.. Mcpherson, Fred Bates johnson,
attorney for the city of KokomO, asked
what prlce is to be paid for the property
OF the Merchant Heat and Light Com
pany. the Valparaiso Lighting Company
and The E!khRrt Gas and Fuel Company
! w. fesler, On attorney for petitioner
objected on the ground Joseph II.
Brewer. president Of the e'ectric corpora
tion, had testified this was not to De
lift To tl.c public service commission.
Comudssitne George Barnard. howcver
he'll tue respondent was entitled 10 tie
information and said he would order the
petitioner to produce the information.
INFORMATION IN,
SAYS WITNESS.
I'VE have given you all the informa-
ton that exists on that subject" Mr.
Mcpherson declared" and you can order
you more"
rs until doomsday and we can't give
Mr.. Barnard declared that the com
mission had a right to know what was
TO be paid for the property and asked
Mr.. Mcpherson II he had an idea how
| much is to be paid.
Certainly l have an idea.' Mcpherson
said
Then how much is to be paid ?" Mr.
Barnard asked
II don't know how much Is to be paid
bnt 1t will be approximately the valuation
We have set out"
} He said this would hold true for the
other properties. In reply to further
questions he said the obligations of the
Merchants Heat and Light Company
| amounting to S6.5OO.O0O, would be as
sumed and the remainder, amounting to
| $5,000,000, would be paid in common and
preferred stock and notes, Mr. johnson
then demanded to know what proportion
of each security is to be paid This
lection was sustained.
SEEK MANNER
OF TRANSFER.
| Mr.. johnson then attempted to estab-
lish the exact manner In which the prop
erty is to be transferred Mr.. McPher-
son testified It would be decided directly
to the Indiana Electric Corporation. Mr..
/ Toh ad fn fba
Grafton would pass directly. 1t was an
ally established thatl 1t would not, but
that a deed would pass directly. 1t was
brought out that these questions were
asked with a view to determining the
! jurisdiction OF the commission on the
| ground that, all the parties TO the petit
| ton might not be directly interested The
testimony Of Mr. Brewer, given yester
| day, was referred to as being contra
dictory to the statements of Mr. Nc
Pherson, but Mr. Mcpherson explained
| Mr. Brewer was mistaken to an extent In
! the answers he gave.
Pursuing this questioning further, Mr..
Johnson demanded to know in whose
favor the options for stock weer made. 1t
was established they weer made In
favor of the American Public Utilities
| Company and not the Indiana Electric
| Corporation. but 1t was reiterated the
deeds would pass directly to the electric
| corporation.
| Commissioner Barnard asked Mr.. Nc
| Pherson If he thought it would take Sc
curities amounting to $19,121 900 the
value claimed by the petitioner, to make
! the purchases.
THE securities we asked for would be
necessary" Mr.. Mcpherson replied.
Then nothing less could be used 2"
| Mr.. Barnard asked.
Mr. Mcpherson, after some hesitancy,
replied that fewer could be used, but 1t
would not be feasible.