JSK_BB7_F39 80 |
Previous | 80 of 134 | Next |
|
WILLIAM A. OTT
President and Publisher
March 17, 1977
BE4CON
IOURNN.
44 East Exchange Street
Akron, Ohio 44328
(216) 375-8585
Mr. John S. Knight
Editor Emeritus
Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc.
P. 0. Box 012035
Miami, FL 33101
Dear Jack:
Thank you for giving me your reaction to the Brouse & McDowell matter
and your understanding of the circumstances under which we would want to use
the legal talents of Norman Carr.
I am aware, of course, of the long relationship we have had with the
McDowell firm and the great value that this firm has had in the development
and well-being of our organization. Certainly I had no intention of dumping
the firm and going elsewhere. We use Brouse & McDowell on a variety of
matters and intend to continue to do so. I believe you and I are operating
V on the same wavelength.
You ask about the newsprint allowance of $1.00 a ton. At one time we
received this amount from Erie Lackawanna because of a tariff which recognized
that we were not unloading directly into our plant and that we had to trans¬
port the newsprint from the warehouses across the street from the Beacon Journal
plant.
About the time I came to Akron, the railroad got in trouble with the
ICC for granting the allowance (even though the tariff had been officially
approved). In fact, we were charged with a violation of the El kins Act,
presumably under the assumption that we had entered into some kind of un¬
justified rebate agreement with the railroad. Apparently there would have
been no question of our entitlement if we had trucked the paper from the
warehouse to the plant. But since we had a conveyor under Broadway, the
interpretation was that the warehouses constituted part of the production
plant and, therefore, we were not entitled to the unloading allowance.
The allowance had been granted for a number of years. The problem was
that if we had been found guilty of a violation of the El kins Act, we were
liable for a penalty of three times the amount of the allowance. Conceivably,
the government could have gone back to the beginning of the allowance to assess
the penalty. As I recall, the liability could have been in excess of $600,000,
although the formal complaint dealt with a fairly short period of time.
A Knight-Ridder Newspaper
Object Description
| Title | Macon Telegraph and News — Ott, William; Editor (1935-1946)(JSK_BB7_F39) |
| Creator | John S. Knight |
| Date Notes | 1935-1979 |
| Description | Correspondence with Macon Telegraph Editor Ott |
| Link to Finding Aid Repository | http://ead.ohiolink.edu/xtf-ead/view?docId=ead/OhAkUAS0008.xml;query=;brand=default |
| Subject Terms | Ott, William A., ?-1989 |
| Type | Text |
| Digital Publisher | University of Akron. Archival Services |
| Date Digitized | 2015-06 |
| Copyright Statement | This image is protected by copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code). Copyright to this image lies with The University of Akron which makes it available for personal use for private study, scholarship, or research. Any other use of this image including publications, exhibitions, or productions is prohibited without written permission of The University of Akron Archival Services. Please contact Archival Services at archives@uakron.edu for more information. |
| Source Collection | John S. Knight Papers |
| Identifier | JSK_BB7_F39.pdf |
| Medium | Document |
| Format-Extent | 134 pages |
| Collection Category |
Communications Individual/Families |
| UA College | University Libraries |
| UA Department | Archival Services |
| Website | http://www.uakron.edu/libraries/archives/ |
| Contact Information | Telephone: 330-972-7670; Fax: 330-972-6170; E-mail:archives@uakron.edu |
Description
| Title | JSK_BB7_F39 80 |
| Type | Text |
| Source Collection | John S. Knight Papers |
| Medium | Document |
| Collection Category |
Communications Individual/Families |
| UA College | University Libraries |
| UA Department | Archival Services |
| Website | http://www.uakron.edu/libraries/archives/ |
| Contact Information | Telephone: 330-972-7670; Fax: 330-972-6170; E-mail:archives@uakron.edu |
| transcript | WILLIAM A. OTT President and Publisher March 17, 1977 BE4CON IOURNN. 44 East Exchange Street Akron, Ohio 44328 (216) 375-8585 Mr. John S. Knight Editor Emeritus Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc. P. 0. Box 012035 Miami, FL 33101 Dear Jack: Thank you for giving me your reaction to the Brouse & McDowell matter and your understanding of the circumstances under which we would want to use the legal talents of Norman Carr. I am aware, of course, of the long relationship we have had with the McDowell firm and the great value that this firm has had in the development and well-being of our organization. Certainly I had no intention of dumping the firm and going elsewhere. We use Brouse & McDowell on a variety of matters and intend to continue to do so. I believe you and I are operating V on the same wavelength. You ask about the newsprint allowance of $1.00 a ton. At one time we received this amount from Erie Lackawanna because of a tariff which recognized that we were not unloading directly into our plant and that we had to trans¬ port the newsprint from the warehouses across the street from the Beacon Journal plant. About the time I came to Akron, the railroad got in trouble with the ICC for granting the allowance (even though the tariff had been officially approved). In fact, we were charged with a violation of the El kins Act, presumably under the assumption that we had entered into some kind of un¬ justified rebate agreement with the railroad. Apparently there would have been no question of our entitlement if we had trucked the paper from the warehouse to the plant. But since we had a conveyor under Broadway, the interpretation was that the warehouses constituted part of the production plant and, therefore, we were not entitled to the unloading allowance. The allowance had been granted for a number of years. The problem was that if we had been found guilty of a violation of the El kins Act, we were liable for a penalty of three times the amount of the allowance. Conceivably, the government could have gone back to the beginning of the allowance to assess the penalty. As I recall, the liability could have been in excess of $600,000, although the formal complaint dealt with a fairly short period of time. A Knight-Ridder Newspaper |
