The Bismarck tribune., 1922-05-02
RECORD DISPUTE
MARKS HEARING
IN 4 WATER E CASE
Petitioners Say ''Find" Is Made
And Company Attorneys Say
Records Are ''Old Stuff"
VALUATION PRESENTED
Much Technical Testimony Is
introduced in Hearing Held
Before Commission


It was asserted for the petitioners
thai certain records Of the water
company covering a period Of several
years prior to 1909 which had been re-
ported virtually effaced by water dam
age or loss had been found by S. J..
Hunt, employed by the city in the
case, in a storage vault in the COM
pany offices, and that these figures
disproved testimony presented regard
ing valuation in the previous cases.
It was asserted in reply by water
company representatives that the rec
ords of the company were opened to
the representatives of the petitioners
and city at all times, that the records
dug up by Mr.. Hunt were records
which had been used by accountants
in the report presented in the previous
water company hearing and that Mr
Hunt testified to nothing that was not
brought out in the previous case in
1919 and 1920
Atkinson on Stand
T. R. Atkinson, city engineer, took
the stand when the case was taken up
again this morning Cleon Headley,
of the law firm Of Davis, Severance
& Morgan, St. Paul, was present to
assist in the conduct Of the case with
Mr.. Morgan and Mr.. Zuger.
Mr.. Atkinson was asked how ne
arrived at his figures on the cost OF
the water company construction from
1887 on up to about 1908. Mr.. Atkln-
son said the nrices he put down for
materials entering into the construc-
tion of the water company were OBJ
tanned from Mr.. Wolf, who testified
in the previous case, and who quoted
prices paid by the st. Paul water com:
pany. during the period. He said
prices quoted were greater than paid
by the water company. On cross-ex-
animation, Mr. Atkinson admitted
that he did not know of labor condi-
tions, price of labor, sand, gravel, etc.,
previous up to the time he came to
Bismarck. His opinion was labor cost
was about the same as in st. Paul.
There was argument between attor-
neys at this juncture as to the method
of procedure, after Mr.. Atkinson said
he later expected to put in figures
valuing the water company property
on reproduction method. His valua-
tion had been on the original cost
method. Mr.. Atkinson said it was a
matter of a couple of hours to value
the plant on a reproduction method:
The water company attorneys said
the city should present all its evil
dence first; the petitioners attorney
said the evidence would be in rebuttal
Commissioner Stutsman said he
thought since three cases were being
heard together the city ought not hold
anything back.
Mr.. Young declared the city was not
trying to hold anything back; that it
was not trick but proper method
of procedure.
Says Nothing New Presented
Mr.. Morgan asserted that nothing
was testified to by the city's expert,
S. J. Hunt, that had not been covered
in the previous case. Mr.. Hunt de-
clarcd there was nothing in the record
covering the period from 1903 to 1909.
Mr.. Morgan retorted that there was.
Mr.. Atkinson was asked by City
Attorney O'Hare to compare certain
items in the cost of construction work
used in his valuation and amounts
paid by the company. Mr.. Atkinson
said generally speaking the prices he
allowed were higher than the prices
actually paid.
There was short delay while Mr..
Atkinson telephoned for some data
which he said was being prepared.
Presents Analysis
Mr.. Atkinson presented an analysis
on which he said was shown items in
the plant which had become obsolete.
The period covered was from 1903 to
1912. The total Of the items of water
company property which he said had
become obsolete was $21, ,s99.27. These
deductions were made from the valua-
ton Of Mr.. Hunt, city expert. The
deductions included meters which, he
said, were obsolete or were paid for
bv consumers. Other items included
a pump, amount S2,4OO, which, he
said, became obsolete and had been
replaced. Mr.. Atkinson expiaineI
why he had checked off the valuation
several of the items referred to.
Mr.. Atkinson on cross-questioning
said he had eliminated certain items
because they were included by Mr..
Hunt. Mr.. Morgan asked if Mr.. Hunt
had not included them because they
were part of the construction account.
Mr.. Hunt was next called to the
witness stand by the petitioners and
questioned as to his analysis Of the
various additions and betterments,
and items which had been charged to
capital account.
MIR. Hunt said he had credited
amounts to capital account for pur-
chase of meters on the assumption
that they were owned by the com:
pany. He could not give the total
and was asked if he could prepare in
the next two or three days total Of
CONTINUED on Page 81 y