The Washington times., 1907-11-01
EXCEPTIONS TAKEN
IN GAS DECISION
Counsel Says Wrong Con-
struction Was Placed on
Word "Plant.
Congress Intended to Pro-
tect the Public, He
y Asserts.

Sweeping exceptions have been fled
by Corporation Counsel Thomas TO the
findings OF Auditor James q. Payne
in the case of the petition Of the
Georgetown Gas Light Company for a
court valuation of its property for the
purpose of increasing its capital stock
In these exceptions he also indicates
his probable opinion in the protest OF
the attorneys for the company against
the payment Of taxes on service pipes
and meters.
Nine exceptions have already been
filed by Mr.. Thomas, and before the
thirty days in which counsel may file
exceptions before the auditors report
Is considered by the Supreme Court
Of the District have expired, he may
file others, as also may Stuart McNa-
mara, for the United States.
Mr.. Thomas. in his first exception,
holds that the auditor erred IN placing
a broad construction upon the word
plant" as used IN the act under
which the petition was brought, claim
ing that this directly affects the price
Of gas TO consumers. Congress. he says.
did not legislate primarily TO protect
those dealing in the securities Of the
that he should have found that It
was the intent of Congress to restrict
the meaning OF the term plant in
favor of the public. md to prevent a
vaBlation which would allow an in
crease, and defeat a reduction Of the
price Of gas TO consumers"
Should Exclude Certain Items
If the manifest intent Of Congress
were followed, he continued in the sec
ond exception, the auditor should have
excluded the valuation Of the plant
items aggregating in value $532, $3.50, as
follows Land, mains, 595 street lamp
services, % lamp posts, meters and con-
nectiOns, working capital, and rights
and good will This would place the
value OF the plant at S13S. so. or less
than the present capitalization Of
$4,000.
In the third exception reference IS
made TO the consumers services. which
were excluded from the valuation as
found by the auditor, and against taxa
tiOn upon which the attorneys for the
company have made protest to the As
SCISSOR. Mt. Thomas says in this con
nectiOn that in so far as the finding
of the auditor relates 10 the right OF
the District of Columbia 10 tax the con-
sumers' services as taxable property
against the petitioner, if at all. this re-
spondent eXcepts; but in so far as the
said finding excludes the said con-
sumeTs' services from valuations as part
OF the plant of the petitioner" lie does
not except.
The auditor. he holds. erred also III
denying the application for a Statement
showing how much of the original cepi-
tai stock OF the company. S150.p0O. was
actually paid in in cash or property
and IN refusing to require statement
of the dividends of the company as re-
0uested, and in limiting the statement
of gross earnings, charges, operating
expenses. and the like. to period OF but
five years next preceding Che date OF
fling of the petition.
Establish Cash Value.
The cash value of the plant at tn,
time OF the passage OF the act OF 1896
he asserts. should also have been es
tablished.
He further clasSns that the audito
fafTad @oofc, from, v-,fok, III,