The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-04-19
GIANT insult
MERGER MOVE
TURNED DOWN
Proposed $7o,00o,000 UtiI-
lily Consolidation Denied
by Commission.
FAE RECEIVERSHIP SUIT
7. H., !. & {. Action Expect
ed to Come Up Today
in Federal Court.

ed to Come Up Today
in Federal Court.
appointment Of a receiver for the
Terre Haute, Indianapolis g. East
ern Traction Company in federal
court here today is expected to be
the next step taken as aftermath
OF the public service commission de-
NAL Of the proposed $4,000, 900 In
sull utilities merger Friday after
noon.
Immediately upon official an
nouncement of the merger denial,
receivership suits were instituted
against both the T. H, I. 81 E. and
the indianapolis Street Railway
Company by the Westinghouse Elec-
tric and Manufacturing Company.
The street car receivership action
was filed In Marion circuit court.
Judge Harry o. Chamberlin APP
pointed George G. Forrey Jr. re-
ceiver.
The Westinghouse company al
leges indebtedness of S6,186.56
against the street railway and
s2S,755.51 against the T. H, I. 81 e.
Subsidiary Of T. H, I. g. E.
The Indianapolis Street Railway
Company is a subsidiary of T. H.,
1. g. E., the latter owning common
stock of the street railway company.
The petition proposed joining T.
Fl, I. & E. and the Central Indiana
Power Company properties into a
new concern to be known as the IN
diana Electric Corporation.
Denial was based on over-cspital-
ization and lack of benefit to the
public involved in the move, accord
ing to the order in denial written
by Commissioner Howell Ellis, who
presided at the hearings.
Denial had been predicted as early
as March II by The Indianapolis
Times.
Chairman John w. McCardle and
Commissioner Jere West joined in
support of the entire Ellis order, but
Commissioners Calvin Mcintosh and
Frank Singleton submitted addi-
tional opinions in denial based on
lack of commission Jurisdiction.
All Are Unanimous
All were unanimous in the deci-
sion to deny the merger on the
evidence however.
were based on the attorney gen.
erals opinion to Mcintosh, received
at the start OF the merger hear
ings, setting out that under the
Spencer Shively utilities law the
commission is without jurisdiction
to merge unlike utilities in diff
ferent sections OF the state.
The merger properties included
electric, interurban, water, gas and
ice plants in thirty-eight counties,
All towns and cities and affected
two-fifths of the states popula-
ton.
Opposition attorneys motion TO
dismiss because of lack of jurisdic-
ton, was overruled before the Ellis
order was adopted. The vote
was 5 to 2, with Mcintosh and
Singleton voting in suppo- their
jur1sdictional contentious.
Closes with Findings
The Ellis order occupied thirty
seven pages, setting out the entire
history Of the case and reviewing
the evidence. 1t closed with these
findings, which all commissioners
approved:
81. That the earnings Of the
merged property will not adequately
provide for operating expenses, in
GLIDING depreciation and taxes and
interest. amortization and dividend
reoui-ems--@ v''1ich would result
f~o~' ed structure of
stock and bonds.
opposed merger is
not in the public interest.
IS. That the prayer OF the
amended petition fled Nov. %,
1929. should be denied"
Petitioners were ordered to pay
s64ll9.42 for expenses incurred by
the commission in connection with
the merger hearings and $35.16 for
legal advertising.
Expended in Appraisals
The money was expended in ap-
praisals and audits made for the
commission.
The merger petition first was fled
Aug. ~, 1928. It was assigned to
Harvey Harmon. then commits
Sioner, who later appeared as attor-
ney against the merger
Upon Harmon's retirement from
the commission, Ellis was assigned
the case, but all commissioners
heard the evidence.
From time consumed in reaching
a decision. mass of evidence, and
scope of properties involved. it is
the largest case in the history of
the Indiana commission.
The receivership suits are expect
ed TO result in reorganization Of the
interurban and street railway prop
critics. Their poor financial condi-
ton and the idea that the light and
power users might have to pay for
financing them was one of the big
points made in the Ellis order.