The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-04-29

adjacent proprietors are assessed for
Diily-Whether they take water m
theirs" or not The municipality pays
no taxes, as In all municipal PROPOSE
lions. and is. comparatively speaking. at
little cost for administration or distri-
button purposes And yet We are as
Sessed. even al wholesale prices, over 80
cents a loo for every foot OF water
used Which Is cheaper, all things fair
" considered. gas or water in Washing
Returning to reasonableness OF prices
want to emphasize what I have al
ready said. that I have been speaking or
'6latiVe values only. demonstrating. /
IN confident. beyond the power Of sue
ceSsful contradiction that gas Is among
me cheapest things II not the very
cheapest thing. on EARTH but not argU-
ing that II may not be sold still cheaper
ia me future We are not wanting
Whatever may be said or thought 10
the contrary in sympathy for our
friends and customers, nor attempting to
unEeneroUs, silly ard shortsighted-
Looking at Il broadly and Justly. our
true interests and theirs. as Mr.. Justice
Moody has so ably shown are one
nevertheless. all OF US should realize
what II IS that regulates the natural law
as vel as the law Of the land as to
reasonableness Of rates That depends
upon other considerations than it
cheapneSs per se-depends upon its
cheapnesS relative 20 the value OF the
plant, materials employed in the pro-
IS D. Nduced-
Legislation Not Essential.
Gentlemen OF the committee, you may
make at least some Of those conditions
favorable or unfavorabIe to economic
production according to your pleasure
But IN all frankness. the legislation you
ere now considering is not calculated TO
promote the contamination devoutIy 10
be desired
To intelligentIy and fairly deal with
. this question you must not only dIsa buse
your minds Of bias in regard TO II. but
[ou must qualify your ability TO fairly
pass upon II BY aSCertaining to a rea-
SonaDle certainty the basic factor IN the
proHJS are or may be IN themselves but
what tney are relative 70 the actual
Ealue OF the plant used in producing
mem For as Hamlet said OF the play
mat the thing And I may truly
add that is the only thing IL the last
analysis upon which reasouab Ieness can
oe sllheT fairly OF legally Dredicated-
amor EGnatelT. there IS no longer a
. way by which this basic fact, the value
OF me plant, can be fudiciaIly ascer-
| talne1 al present There was way-a
sure and simple way. q is believed; a
way safeguarded by the Supreme Court
OF the United States But Congress. IN
It's wisdom, thought proper as we have
already seen. 10 forecIOse Il. and we are
forced 10 other methods Of a0orafsaT
which. IN part have already been
glanced at. but should be more partiCu-
-arly pointed out 20 you perhaps that
you may fully understand that the com
pany has endeaVOred IN good faith for
I the benefit OF all whom II may concern,
10 furnish you with the best Information
I Obtaluable upon this vital point
Last summer. gentlemen Of the com
Elttee. asreea5ly 20 a suggestion from
the Interstate Commerce Commission as
/ explained 70 you at the last hearing,
. l-HaH sz-.r
most competent concern 70 could find 10
! inventory and value its properties. That
concern. as you 1aT1 seen, was the
well-knovn firm OF EtssTssy2ls revs & CSIas-
OF SIX Of the best qualified OF our local
business men, made an impartial ap-
/ praisal Of its assets. the net result Of
; whose laDoES duly appears IN the state
me1r OF the company for the fiscal wear
fast ended To make their findings
I dOublE sure. the COMPANY had them all
/ dit Company one OF the most c0nserva-
( tive houses IN fits line OF business in the
woTld-for Il enjoys an International
4 reputation YOL have the result Of all
Of their labOrS before you and 7 am
not going ts devote any more OF the
: time allotted 20 me TO their findings
other than "a confirm them BY the testL
mony Of the law OF the land applicable,
+ as we shall see. in such cases
Entitled to Appraisal.
] nave therefore, no hesitation what
. ever in again submitting, Mr.. Chairman,
that we have esta blished certIfcation
that entities our appraisal, until il shall
have been successfully challenged. %
your unqualified confidence and respect
We have gone into the matter Of this
-prraisement more at length than we
otherwise shoald have done because It
unqgestionabIy involves, 1 feel justified
in reiteratiuE, the basic question on
which the whole case rests. For II the
appraiseuent Of the plant, exclusive
Of the franchises. is 70 be taken as
substantially correct. il follows that the
company is entitled TO a rate for its
. product that viii yield a reasonable re-
turn upon q tangible value basis that is
nearly 4pD per cent greater. and uDou
"A going value basis over 500 per cent
greater than the face or par value OF its
stock In other words, it follows as
the night follows the day. that % Der
cent dividends on the stock IS in LEGAL
infant and erect only a diviveud Of five
. 90 per cent upon the physical property
and less than four - PEI cent .UpOn the
. entire property Of the company used nv
+ u n the conduct OF its business That
3 TACT II II be a TACT, Individually estab-
. lsheS che company.s legal right ard
I title 10 be released from the burden Of
q this resolution unless It can be ghov--
. By somebody that there is some reason
Z 70 doubt the rule laid down IN CHICAGO
. lDTeEHuflV q
. be analyzed). IN Gibbon vs.. Manor
[ thereafter 10 be reviewed. ia vVesfe-r
E Union VS. Williams Creps-ateriIy- -fr -
E and affirmed by the Supreme Co71r+ NJ
. the United States. that every r1r1b1f-
J service corporation has a Ie~aI 80
moral right to n security Capitalization
I either expressed or implied a07raI r.
! the actual value Of its uroDerfy- NJ
. which Il cannot be properI- Ja--Jv-a;
. without due process Of law.
Noted Decision Cited
In support OF this contentio, 7 bss- .,
call your attention to the LEADING De.
cision upon the subject in the ceIs.
bTated case OF Chicago, NiIwaukee- am
/ St Paul, &C, vs. Minnesota. 1s4 II <
! Supreme Court Reports, page as. e
the uertinency Of which 10 the con.
/ troversy here must be obvious to ever
/ impoTtial mind.
1 The question OF the reasona bIenez,
OF q rate the Court saws .s7ry-ol1-irr
as II does the element Of reasona bIenesS
both as regards the company and "a,
J regards the public. is eminentiy a Cr1eS-
3 ton for judicial investigation. -reouiriul
due process Of law for its deterT1i13
-iOn.'
If the company is deprived Of tn.
power Of charging reasonable rates TO