The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1907-07-30
Declares II Would Cost Sos, 900 to
Duplicate the FactOry-Worth Of
Franchise and Good VIII Esti-
mated Mt $131 ,OOO-CoS.rt Rules
Scope OF Inquiry Ia Limited.

! /
Grand tOtal....-.....-..-...--. 500 900
Expert testimony was presented yester-
day showing that the actual worth Of the
property and plant Of the Georgetown
Gaslight Company is $685. 22. 70 which the
value of the franchise and good win of
the concern was added, valued at sfSl,s7s,
making a grand total of 100000.
The hearing at which these facts were
brought out was upon the petition of the
Georgetown Gasllght Company to the
Equity Court, praying for permission OF
the court to Increase its capital stock
from $4,000 to $500. 900. basing the request
upon the terms Of the law of 1885, which
gives the court discretion to grant such
a petition.
This testimony was given by William
W Randolph. OF New York, an expert
gas engineer. brought TO Washington 20
appraise. the assets of the company ac-
cordlng to his best judgment The de-
tails of the appraisement are given at
the head Of this column.
This IS the property, valued at $500. 900
by the Georgetown Gaslight Company's
expert engineer, which was returned for
assessBent by the Georgetown Gasllght
Company at SS0O4l, and which in 1896
showed earnings Of SIS. 23S
1t is these facts which counsel for the
District Of Columbia Will bring before
the auditor
Case Called Before Justice Gould.
The hearing was before James G.
Payne auditor Of the District Supreme
Court. The testimony was given under
the direct examination OF r Ross Perry.
attorney for the gasllght company. and
the cross-examination Of Attorney f. H
Thomas. representing the District Of CO.
lumbia and Stuart Mcnamara, repre-
sentng the United States government.
Prior TO the hearing before Referee
Payne. Justice Ashley N Gould convened
Equity Court No ?. al which the petit
ton Of the Georgetown Gaslight Com
pany was called for hearing. Justice
Gould announced at the opening Of the
hearing that since last Monday, when the
matter was postponed at request Of
counsel he had decided. pursuant 10 rul-
ing by the United States Supreme Court.
that 1t would be better practice to have
the testimony in the case taken before
a referee, who would make all necessary
computations and report TO the court
fully on the finding Of facts. He an
nOunCed that opportunity would be given
for objection 10 the report Of the referee
by the counsel for the District and
United States government, who had en-
tered formal appearance on the record.
Wanted Scope of Inquiry Broad.
Before adjournment Of the case to the
referee, there was an argument between
counsel as TO the form of reference. At
tOrney z. II. Thomas, In behalf OF the
District Commissioners, objected to the
form, complaining that its scope was
much narrower than the regulations gov
erning the proceedings promulgated by
the court. He thought the referee should
have the same powers that the court
would have if the case were 20 be heard
by the justice in person. Mr.. Thomas
urged especially that the referee should
be instructed 10 report upon the neces-
sity for granting the petition OF the COM
pany. He urged that the court was not
bound by the law 10 grant the request for
an increase Of stock. and that testimony
on this point ought TO be brought out in
the hearing. r. Ross Perry, for the com
pany, declared that the order Of the court
followed the act of Congress authorizing
the proceedings and maintained that il
was sufficient
COmpany's Attorney Explains.
Mr.. Perry proceeded to explain the pur
pose Of the company In asking the court
for permission to increase its capital
stock He said the proceedings were
brought to authorize the company
properly TO express in its capital stock the
actual value Of its property.
Mr.. Perry stated that in the inception Of
a stock corporation the paid-in stock
represented the company's holdings, but
that years afterward, when there was no
further issue. Of stock, when a surplus
had been earned, and the value of the
plant and fixtures had been added to, Il
was incumbent upon the company TO find
larger expression OF this value in the
increase Of capital stock. Mr.. Perry
brought forward examples to show that
this was the usual course of such cor
p0rations in this country He said il
was part Of the law of growth in such
industries.
In reply to arguments, Justice Gould
stated that the jurisdiction of the
court was circumscribed by the act Of
Congress, and left only one question to
be decided by the hearing, which was the
actual worth Of the plant He said
the court could not order an increase of
stock, but such action would be left en-
tirely to the company, after the court
in its discretion had determined whether
II was in a position 10 take such a steD
Randolph Analyses HIS Figures.
Mr.. Randolph was the first witness
after court had adjourned and the case
had been taken up by the referee. He
stated that he was an employe Of Hum
phries & Glasgow. Of New York. ne
chanical and mining engineers for gas
and electric plants. He said he had been
employed by the Georgetown company to
make an estimate of the value of its
plant. He had done similar work for
many plants in the United States. and
was familiar with the details Of such APP
praisement. Mr.. Randolph stated that he