Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
' O Los Angeles, Calif., Aprilj HD 23-1 Mr. 5. H. Enickerbocker: Referring to your letter of April 4, 1932, Do. 9 21-513-W, enclosing copy of Mr. G-rayrs letter of March l?th, together with statement referred to therein, concerning financial returns from operation of the Las Vegas Land and Water Company in furnishing water at Las. Vegas for period January 1, 1920 to September 30, 1931, and returning attachments: We have checked the figures on the statement of operating results and have indicated on it in pencil where the figures do not agree with our books* There are various differences on the statement which when taken into consideration, result in reducing the deficit for the period involved from #29,994.09 to #26,886.27 or ,a difference of |3,107.82. The difference in revenues for the years 1921 to 1925, inclusive, was due to the omission of a yearly item of #7*32, covering rent from use of a small pipe line at Las Vegas, in accordance with Gontract Audit Do.1987 between the- L.A.& S.L.R.H.Go. and the Water Company. This item was included in the revenues for 1920 but was apparently overlooked when the revenues for the subsequent years up to and including 1925 were compiled, but in our opinion should be included in the total revenues from water operations at Las Vegas. The differences in the Investment figures for the years 1926 and 1927 were due to the omission of an item of $1,284.11, representing the cost of water service connections which were carried in a separate ledger account at that time and should be included in the total investment in the water system.