Los Angeles herald., 1910-06-10
VOTERS EAGER To-
SIGN REFERENDUM
In One Day $500 Out of the 1860
Names Necessary Are
Affixed
AGER FOR LOW LIGHT RATE
Municipal League Confident That
Question Will Be Settled
at the Polls
AGER FOR LOW LIGHT RATE
Continued from Page onel

Continued from Page One)
and the response to the request ha
been general. At noon yesterday +
NJ. Steele of the Municipal leagu
forces got thirty names in less tha
a half hour at the new court hous
building from among the laborers OF
the structure Secretary Edgertoi
states that people from the OUTLYING
districts are requesting that petition
be sent out to them for signature
Whenever possible, this is done.
BRACKENRIDGE UPHoLDS POSITION
w. A. Breckenridge. vice presiden
and general manager of the Souther
california Edison company, states tn
reasons which actuated his compan
in asserting that the reduction of cleo
tric lighting rates from cents to
cents per kilowatt hour are unjust
and eonfiscatory, an
emphatically disputes the assertion
that the 7-cent rate was adopted afte
thorough investigation. Mr.. Bracken
ridge says in part:
Pursuant to the city ordinance
the Southern California Edison
company and other public utility
companies of Los Angeles in jan
uary last filed statements with the
city council showing the value or
the property devoted to public use
in Los Angeles and the amount of
net earnings received during the
preceding year after providing for
operating expenses and deprecia-
ton.
The records show that these
statements were received by the
city council and promptly referred
to the board of public utilities for
investigation. The board, having
been but recently created, was not
equipped to take up the investiga-
tion of all utility rates in thor
ough manner within the time at its
command This resulted in the
very complicated and intricate
question of electric light rates re-
ceiving little or no attention dur
ing the four months intervening
between the date of the filing of
the company's statement and the
date of report by the board of pub
lie utilities. This is evidenced by
the fact that numerous requests
made by us for hearing before the
board of public utilities were de-
MED and we were told that the
board was busily engaged in mat
ters of water, gas and telephone
rates. This resulted in the report
of the board of public utilities
being made to the city council
without our side of the case hav-
ing been properly presented.
In the few days just prior to May
25 the board of public utilities
called upon us for various data and
information concerning our proper
ties and our expenditures, which
was furnished promptly, and in no
instance did they comment upon
or criticise to us the figures which
we had submitted.
GIVEN SLIGHT WARNING
We received official notification.
at 10:30 o'clock on the morning of
May 25 that the board of public
utilities had reported to the city
council a schedule of lighting rates
which would very largely decrease
our revenue. in this city, and not
withstanding the fact that the
board of public utilities had held
our report from January to May
without giving us an opportunity
to present our arguments we were
summarily notified by the city
council that the clearing" of our
case would be held at 1880 o'clock
on the same day, only three hours
after receipt of notice by us of the
presentation of the report of the
board of public utilities to the city
council.
At o'clock the following morn
ing, May 26, the city council took
up the report of the board of pub
lie utilities and announced that 1t
proposed to adopt an ordinance
fixing the lighting rates by May 81
in order that 1t could be published
for the statutory thirty days prior
to July l. The time being too short
for us to properly present our case
to the city council the only course
open to US was to protest along
general lines against the rate pro-
posed to be adopted, which we did
by filing an affidavit by our sec
retary to the effect that the pro-
posed schedule of rates would pro-
vide a wholly inadequate return on
the value of our property and that
the ablishment of this schedule
of rates would deprive us of our
property without due process of
law and would result in taking
private property for public use of
and in the confiscation of the prop
erty of our company.
After the fling of our affidavit
we were permitted to cross-eXam-
Inc the principal engineer upon
whose advice the board of public
utilities admitted they had reached
this conclusion. The sworn testi-
mony of this engineer, which is
now a matter of record, further
substantiates the fact that new
rates were recommended and fixed
without proper investigation, as
among other things he admitted
that he had made no personal in
vestigation whatever of our prop
erty and that his work was simply
that of an engineer who had little
time to bring out the substantial;
that he had had no experience in
the executive or commercial
branches of the electric business,
and that many of the properties of
this company and of the other
lighting companies he had never
seen, and that he had examined
none of them for the purpose of
making his report to the board of
public utilities. Upon these ex
parte statements, frankly admitted
to be theoretical computations, and
by restricting the time limit of the
hearing so as to preclude the pos
sibility of our submitting proper
evidence to establish the value of
our property or to prove the cost
of operation, the city council adopt
ed a rate which is wholly made
uuate, unreasonable and conhsca-
tory.
COMPROMISE is SUGGESTED
Later. information was conveyed
to us that some compromise of the
situation might be effected, as sew
eral of the councilmen felt that the
matter had been decided with un-