The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1922-02-18

of their duticS to the public, the
defendants revoked the temporary
suspension OF the franchise require
mentS;; that thereafter many and
prolonged negotiations took place
between defendants. tho complain
ant, and others interested i'm its be-
half finally resulting in an audit
Of the books Of complainant by
public accountant, made for tho
purpose OF showing how much had
been invested By complainant III its
holdings in Sumter, and what had
been its earnings. and not as alleged
by complainant for the purpose
OF aSccrtaining u reasonable rate:
that it had been the contention OF
defendants all along that complain
ant was bound by the requirements
of it's franchise. but nevertheless.
for the purpose Of public peace and
quietude, and in order to harmon
iously compromise a!! differences.
and to permit complainant better
means Of performing its duties 10
the public, defendants offered 10
complainant a rate OF one and 60-
100 (s1G0) dollars gross, still re-
serving to the public the rights en-
! bodied in the franchise: that this
rate was fixed upon by defendants
after most carefully examining and
most thoroughly investigating the
entire situation. and in the light of
the facts brought forth by the au-
ditor's report and. in the opinion OF
defendants, was and is sufficient to
Weld TO complainant full and fair
return from its operations: that
while. it was the purpose Of defend
ants to allow q rate that would
Yield a proper return, the same was
asked for and permitted purely as
matter Of grace. and With tllll
reservation TO the public Of its
rights under the franchise. should
defendants in the future deem il
proper TO exert them.
I'D That the defendants are at
this time. without any expert intor-
nation on the value Of the COM
plainant's gas works. but believe
that the value il not nearly so great
as the sum alleged by complainant.
and is certainly not greater than
| the sum Of One Hundred and fifty
! thousand ($l50 ,O00.00D dollars.
and are satisfied that a full in
vestigation into the facts will show
! that complainants. has grossly
over-valued its plant and equip-
ment.
(e) That the defendants are
without information as TO the ac-
tual investment made by complain
tant, except as was obtained by t:le
said auditor. which in no way cor
responds with the allegations Of
| tho bill and its exhibits; that on
information and belief. defendants
deny that the historical cost Of
complainant plant and equipment
in Sumter is as alleged in the
bill and, on information and be-
lief. defendants allese that COM
plainant's actual investment there
in does not exceed the sum Of One
Hundred thirty-three thousand,
two hundred siXtyone and 29-l0o
dollars. (SJ33,26129. That from
an inspection of said bill, and es-
pecially Of the exhibit marked
Schedule a, it appears that the
complainant has included as an hc-
tual investment twenty-seven and
onc-half per cent or 1-2) per cent?
| of the amount it claims 10 have
paid out 20 cover items Of Pro
motion. Organization. Engineering
and Financing Costs. That tho de-
PENDANTS are Informed and believe,
and allege that the portion OF said
total represented by Promotion
Organization. Engineering and I'll
nancing Costs" does not represent
actual expenditures. but is purely
an arbitrary addition to the amount
actually spent. imposed for the
purpose OF attempting to secure
higher rates; that in computing
costs, there is clso Included an !tcin
designated in the bill as the Cost
and Expense Of financing and cs-
tablishing its enterprise aS going
concern" stated to be the sum OF
Fiftv-one Thousand. Sevcpty-scvcn
and 1900 (S51.077.13) dollars;
that the defendants are Informed,
believe and allege that this item is
not an item of cost at all. but, il Ii
represents anything. it is merely
the accumulated loss on the opera
tons Of the complainant.
Cd Defendants further allege
that they are informed and believe.
said information having been OBJ
tanned from the said audit. that the
books OF the complainant show q
capital stock Investment Of One
Hundred Thousand (s10O.000) dol
lars. but that not actually one cent
was paid in mnoey as q cOnSldera-
ton of said stock: that the same
was issued on a fictitious basis.
without consideration TO the COM
plainant. and that the plant OF
complainant was actually built from
the proceeds Of bonds which were
sold at cighty-Scyen and half PEI
cent of their par value to the
stockholders. Defendants aver that
The purpose of this 'watcred stock
and issue of bonds a. q discount TO
stockholders was to show 4 fictitious
capital. in order 70 charge and re-
ceive a rate in excess OF that to
which tie complainant WAS actually
entitled.