Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-12-27
CONTENDS PLAN
OF BIG ELECTRIC
MERGER FAULTY
Kokomo Attorney, in Brief,
Attacks Legality of
Corporation.

Arguments against the Public service
commission granting the petition Of the
Indiana Electric Corporation for per-
mission to issue securities for the pur-
chase of seven utility plants in Indiana
are contained in brief fled with the
commission today by Fred Bates John
SON. special counsel for the city Of Ko-
/ kom0.
Another brief opposing the merger was
filed by William L. Taylor, representing
the Link Belt Company and other lndl-
/ annapolis firms.
The brief opens with a discussion Of
the valuation of the properties. 1t con-
tends that the estimated valuations
placed on the property by the corpora
ton are far too high. 1t calls the cor
poration's valuation merely guess OF
| IAN estimate Of an estimate 1t sets
( out three valuations and shows that on
/ the basis of either the valuation placed
on the property by the corporation Is
too high.
| VALUATIONS
| COMPARED.
In the first place, 1t sets out the cor
! poration's valuations of $lS,I26,I'3 for
all the property and compares it with
a valuation Of $l40D0OO0 made by Harry
O. Garman. chief engineer Of the public
| service commission, on the basis or Il
r.co,+ valuation made If the property OF
Tho Indiana Railways 4 lfcnt Company
| - t-,t.,o ,, or tho nroDerfies in
,.-,,o5 a., mis- hosis tho hriuf shows an
a,,,se ~ 81 -ae- ~ cdtpnarison is
then made Of the value claimed by the
/ cOrporation and the valuation made by
! Mr. Garman In the hearing of the f'r>t
| ratition filed by the corporation. ms
! value was S1I 100000 and the comparison
SHOWS an excess OF @'''-o''''' -.
! comparison ~ pet"e'n '.1 ''
/ valuation ana the COST "i 'h' P''i','
1 the latter being given as Ni'"N'"o' ) "''
/ shows q difference OF SSt-o'i'"- None
: of the comparisons. IL is explained, takes
/ into account the present or deprecated
/ values Of the properties
CONTENDS
Plan IIIFGAT
m hrfse mo, t,l,cs am tba question
80 -. "a e. r,Istfon 70 vanlatioD
ga -, an, 49,. ,.,sis ~ valuations nm
-; go, ett -0o ooo o.. els zoo 400 thaf
....,,-,. -, .,,~-, s,,rIrinrt 10
~. ~f 49, .a,, ret,,r, an fha
IN ~, p..,,,ll, 80 FL. Nor
-! ~, 49, r., 60. nm a., ,.ouf.rd
- 80, g, - Gov, ho raid
~ '.o' ~ -. - % e. toe
.. 't9'S ..i,.tto i,n,r,,
49,. y. eo,3-o, &C.
pI''C'S lie s go 90 and sbo,ys
sot o.. oo ~ +.l,,..t,,, th,
g., ,b,r,os and ne denraciatton
- - IL 49,, hy dcclarfc,, Tho
-. d., ,,,1-.,1 hera,,so g. attonnrs 10 do
ir,1Jr..,1r MT c,n NOT bc done directly
rr,le- the merger law. because all the
,ataraetaa COMBINATIONS ara nor parties
or5 beeause fhe present case is based
on nm amended pleading filed after the
= original was dcaied; that the plan is
against public policy and against tho
/ wishes Of the several communities served ,
that the values are not there; that there
/ is no proper evidence ON income except
/ the testimony of the commission Ar-
coGntauts in the original ease thAt the
+ income thus set oUt Is i'4s th'h H"4
enough TO support either oxed charges or
a fair return.
CONTENDS PROPERTIES
BONDED ABoN NAi' -
Z According go Mr. taylor pr''i' '"'
properties involved IN the pe'iti"n no"
are bonded ana stocked above iA'lr tfu'
values aud there Is no "qu"y mo" " "i'8
any further issues OF securities can De