The Washington herald., 1910-05-03
RIGHTS OF THE WASHINGTON GAS COMPANIES

sideration named in a deed for an IN
divided interest has 20 the real value OF
the property conveyed in It. Each car
ries a certain percentage Of the whole
thing-be that much or Httle-aud that
is all there is 10 it.
6. Beuerments derived from legally es-
tablished rates belong 10 the company
making them. and their value may and
should be included in the appraisal OF
the property used in every case.
Z. II is not against public policy. as
defined by the courts, for public service
corporations 10 permanently invest IN
divided profits earned under statutory
regulations and rates, in extensions, bet
terments or surplus Of any kind or for
any purpose. As TO this proposition and
the preceding one, in addition 70 the cases
cited, I respectfully again refer you to
this Resolution itself II IS an absolute
and unqualified subscription 10 the theory
tnat betterments are subjects Of capl-
talizat!on in that it provides for their
capitalization by this Company In the
future. II those that are 10 be installed
during the coming year may properly be
capitalized, why not those Of last year
and so from year 10 year back 70 the
beginning?
s. II is not within the power OF Con-
gress to pass discriminatory laws. that
IS 10 say. laws that in effect deny TO one
person the protection granted 20 others
all persons. whether natural or artificial.
being equally guaranteed by the Con-
stituuon IN the ful use and enjoyment
Of their property and property rights.
The sixth, seventh and eighth PROPOSE
tiOus. as above stated. are amply covered
/ by the cases I have already cited. notably
the Chicago. Milwaukee &, St. Paul case;
the case Of Gibbons Us. 1Iahon: the case
Of Williams VS.. Western Union. and the
case Of People VS.. O'Bren.
Finally. as 10 the constitutional point
involved I beg 20 call the attention
Of the Committee 10 the fact that
this resolution is not q general stat
utOry regulation governing the in
ternal administration Of the Company az
10 capitalization. but a legal restriction
and limitation upon the use OF It's prop
erty that not only clouds its title thereto
| in effect, but by limiting the Companys
power 70 meet its obligations alters. i'm
/ pairs and pro tanto invaHdates its ex-
istlng contracts. In this connection I beg
I 20 note, what ! omitted 10 note
when discussing Chicago, Milwaukee
and St Paul vs. Minnesota. that
/ Mr.. Justice Bradley dissented in that
/ case, the decision in which. neverthe-
/ less. survives, and will ever stand, let US
/ hope, as Mr.. Blatchford's monument. Il
/ is also true that Mr.. Lamar sympathized
/ with Mr.. Bradley, both being sensitive
/ about States Rights and strict c0nstruc-
I ton dogmas- In fact Justice Bradley
/ says page 466. infeTenually. that ha
T would have stood with the Court had Il
/ been Federal case, arising under the
/ 5th Amendment, and not a state case.
/ arising under the 18th Amendment For
says he: The 5th is prohibition as 10
/ the Federal Government only and not
/ upon State Governments In this mat
/ ter-just compensation for property ia
I ken for public Use-the States make
/ their own regulations. by State consutc-
. tions or otherwise. They are only re-
/ quired by the Federal Constitution 70
I provide due process Of law" Due pro
/ cess Of law. ! may remark. IS the key
note Of our liberties TO which all must
/ tune their hearts-with which the Fed
/ eral Constitution permits no State to get
/ into discOrd; but. in matters within us
own territory every State has the right,
and this decision says So 70 regulate by
/ general laws the internal management
Of its own public service companies
7 |~4-H. I o..
such expressly reserved rights as are
then in force or may, thereafter, be
/ amended or imposed BY future general
laws. future constitutions. or general
legislation.
But no State can undertake 20 90 that
sort Of thing by private or special stat
utes, nor can Congress do so by a pri-
vate act especially enacted TO affect pri-
vate charters without due regard and re-
speCt 10 the right Of review reserved IN
and by the 18th Amendment. which IS IN
as full force. visor, and effect to-day as
Il was in 1851, when this famous decision
was rendered
In concluding. beg 10 again direct
your attention to the able opinion of M
Justice Moody, here!nbefore briefly re-
lerred TO- speaking for a unanimous
court in the Knoxville water case. de-
Iivered during the October term OF last
year:
The courts. IN clear cases. ought not
10 hesitate 10 arrest the operation Of a
confscatory law, but they ought 20 re
frain from interfering in cases OF any
other kind. Regulation OF public service
corporations which perform their duties
under conditions of necessary monopoly
will occur with greater and greater fire.
quency as time goes on Il IS a delicate
and dangerous function, and ought 70 be
exercised with a keen sense Of justice
on the part Of the regulating body. met
by a frank disclosure on the part OF the
, company 20 be regulated. The courts
, ought not 20 bear the whole burden OF
saving property from confscatIon, though
they will not be found wanting where
the proof IS clear. The legislatures and
subordinate bodies to whom the legisla-
tive power has been delegated ought TO
: do their part. Our social system rests
largely upon the sanctity OF private
property. and that State or community
which seeks 70 invade IL win soon dis
cover the error in the disaster which fol-
/, lows. The slight gain TO the consumer
} which he would obtain from a reduction
in the rates charged by public service
corporations is as nothing compared with
his share in the ruin which would be
T brought about by denying TO private
property its Just reward. thus unsettlinG
) values and destroying confidence. On
r the other hand. the companies TO be
regulated will find IL 20 their lasting in