The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-12-09
CLARKE ACT SEEN
AS MERGER MOVE
Continued From Page u

pressed. Andrus is now in Chicago
and could not be reached at his
hotel and at his Office.
While board members said sit is
understood that Clarke controls the
Merchants Heat and Light Com
pany," Roy C. Shaneberger, board
president, said the board would
{ await definite terms of the offer in a
letter Clarke said he would write.
If the board recognized Clarke as
controlling the Merchants COM
pany they would be opposed to Ruck'
err who is fighting to prevent mer,
ger of the Indianapolis Light and
Heat Company, which Clarke adj
mlttedly controls, with the Mer-
chants company.
That Clarke is jumping the gun"
was the opinion of those who heard
him outline his proposal in advance
of a public statement that he con-
trolls the Merchants Company.
FOXwOrthy Surprised"
NJ. X. Foxworthy, general man.
ager Of the Merchants Company
professed surprise at Clarke's action
and said he did not know whether
the Chicago man is a company
stakeholder.
IT don't know what is his author
ity," F'oxworthy said. Il did not
. know he had appeared before the
board until 1 read it in the news
papers.
81 don't know whether he is
stakeholder, but presume he is.
You'll have to ask Mr.. Clarke about
that"
Not Listed
Clarke is not listed as a stock
holder in supplementary brief filed
Nov. IS, before the public service
commission. In that document,
which purports to list "all stock
holders" and which is attested by
p. d. Birdsall, the stockholders
named are Martin j. insult, L. B.
Andrus, Il. e. Mulholland, L. w.
Schiescz. Foxworthy and j. w.
Fesler, who is company attorney.
Either Clarke has become a stock
Of a ruling on the merger by the
commission, or the supplementary
brief is fa,sifed, it was pointed out.
an light the town for $250.000,"
Clarke promised the board of works.
How are you going to do it?"
Shaneberger asked.
I'm outline that in a letter"
Clarke replied.
Clarke Warned
Board members warned Clarke
that they will not tolerate severe
curtailment of lights because Of the
reduction in the yearly bill.
The Merchants Company and the
Duvall administration board have
fought for many months because the
board refused to comply with terms
of a contract the Merchants Com
pany made with the Shank admins
tration board, providing for an an
nual cost otat least 100000 for ten
years.
In March. the board ordered many
lights removed and refused to pay
bills beyond the first three months
OF this year. The board ordered two
corner lights be substituted for four
corner lights except in the con-
gested district, and reduced the
5000 lumen lights to 10000 in the
business district and 10000 lumen
illumination in the residence district
to 5000 Heavy illumination i'll
Forest Hills, on Thirtieth ST., from
Northwestern Ave. to the Canal
and in Golden Hill was reduced.
New Protest
A memorandum to. the city's mo.
ton to dismiss the amended petit
ton against the merger, was filed
with the State public service COM,
mission Wednesday afternoon by
Rucker and Charles Mendenhall and
John w. Becker, attorneys aiding
him.
It is set forth in the memorandum,
as was contended in the motion to
dismiss, that since the original
merger petition was ruled out by
the commission, because of lack of
jurisdiction, the amended petition
hasno standing as it does not legally
exist.
Frank WampleP, commissioner in
charge of the merger hearing, has
not set date for arguments on the
amended petition as yet.