The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1929-11-28
OGDEN LEAVES
GIANT MERGER
Up TO BOARD
Commission Must Decide
for Itself as to Action on
insult Project.
HEARING OPENS MONDAY
Attorney-G Vague in
His Definition of
Jurisdiction.

Made Judge of both the law and
the facts" by opinion of Attorney
General James M. Ogden, the Indi-
ana public service commission Mon
day will begin hearings in the house
of representatives on the proposed
$70,O00,000 insult utilities merger.
The encouragement handed the
problem back to the commission
late Wednesday,, in an opinion which
did not define definitely the COM
missioners' jurisdiction.
Although the opinion was in reply
to questions of one commissioner,
Calvin Mcintosh, the attorney gen.
eral said members of the commits
sion may determine for themselves
whether they wish to accept it as
official, so far as they are con-
cerned."
Ordinarily, Ogden's rulings in
terpret and define Jurisdiction with
precision. In his replies to McIn-
tosh, however, he cited restrictions
to the commissions jurisdiction, but
left the commission to determine
whether they apply in the insult
merger.
Tip to Commission
The opinion holds "the ultimate
decision as to whether utilities are
similar in service or product is a
question of fact in each case for the
commission to decide from evidence
and that the commission may deter
mine whether the merger falls with
In the section of state law under
which it operates.
The only limitations imposed. ac-
cording to the opinion, are those of
Interpretation of the section which
sets out that merging corporations
must render similar service or prod
ucts and must have intersecting or
parallel lines. Interpretation of
this clause Is vested in the commits
sion, the opinion holds.
The opinion was requested by
Mcintosh without knowledge of the
other commissioners, according to
Commissioner Howard Ellis, who
will conduct the hearings.
Opinion Is Brief
The opinion briefly sets out in
substance the following answers tc
four questions propounded:
Q-Does the commission have any
legal authority to authorize or ap-
prove mergers other than that pro-
vided in Section 951s of the act?
A-The commission has authority
to allow in its discretion the merg-
ing of two or more public utilities
which furnish like service or prod
uct and are doing business in the
same municipality or locality, OF
whose lines intersect or parallel each
other. Advisability of such merger
rests solely and only with the COM
mission.
Q-Would that authorize the
merging of transmission lines, ice
plants, heating plants, gas plants
and bus lines into one corporation?
A-The commission would have nc
authority to authorize MERGERS not
falling into the classification al
ready outlined.
Q-Does ''doing business In the
same municipality or locality with
in the state" permit merging of
properties from Edwardsnort to
Gary and from Terre Haute to Rich
mond?
A-The word locality IS held as
not broad enough to embrace more
than community or settlement and
can not be construed in any broader
application"
Must Parallel Each Other
Q-What is the restraining effect
of the law which says that trans
portation utilities to be merged must
be those whose lines intersect or
parallel each other within the
state?"
Att seems quite clear that only
utilities rendering a similar service
or product could be so related to
each other as to fall within the
meaning of intersecting Or parallel
lines when applied to competitive
service rendered and would require
an actual intersecting or parallelling
of its wires, rails or pipes, as MAJ
arise in different cases.