upr000298 6

later — ? San Bernardino* Los Angeles, November 38, 1933. ®r. 1 , A. I l l lianas: Referring to Mr» Comstock's letter to me of April 18th on the above subject: I regret to ©ay thi® file baa been overlooked, hence the delay in answering. I have gone over the file and also discussed the matter fully with Mr. Perkins* The Santa Fe apparently admit© that the bill© rendered against us were in error because in Mr. Hitchcock1s letter to Mr. Comstock of November 38th, 1981, they offered to refund to us the’amount of $8,966.84. Apparently the only basis for refus-jjiii* %o- ffliii who 1.6 fey imi utid^ir Isfe# ©xSsts&iiij oontraot i© under standing with Mr# Sutt in 191? that no adjust-meat in this account would be made effective prior to boptember 1st of that year*• (Bee Mr. Hibbard's letter to Mr. Comstock of April 7th, 1933). While I do not know what verbal understanding may have been reached with Mr. Wells there is nothing in the correspondence that I can find which sustains this contention. The corres­pondence seems to have started with a letter of August S7th, 1917, to Mr. Suit from General Manager Wells, In which he ft&SW. the claim that the 5^ per thousand gallons which had been the basis o f the chargee of the Santa Fe prior to that time is inadequate anA asks that this cost price be increased. Mr. Nutt on September 15th states *1 apree with you that your charge for water should be babed upon the’"coat and suggest that if it is practicable to do ao your bills be rendered upon this basis each month. On December 31st, 1817, Mr. Wells wrote Mr. Nutt stating that a teat had been made in May, 1917, of the amount cf water used and a revision made of the cost figure© which would indicate that the average cost per thousand gallons of ttrreeiated water was .1053 to .106.9~'and suggesting that the matter be handled upon the basis of a flat charge of H o * and concluding as follows: I shall unless advised to the contrary consider your letter of September 15th a© an acquiescence in the charge of 11^ per thousand gallon© . n February 6th Mr. Nutt wrote Mr. Wells stating, I am agreeable to an arbitrary charge based upon actual coat and a© you suggest, osufb let threadiuftments as condition© may warrant, and in view the fact t S the cost figure© which you have furnished include the cost of treating, I assume that you will continue thoprao-tioe of eliminating from your joint bill© any sterns * portion of costs of operating the treating plant a© referred to in your letter of August 27th, 1917. -1-