The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-05-03

SLdS6 market value CID equals 1904
Vp9i ana We have a total Of Sl2,sS4, 60
which closely corresponds with the
Humphreys appraisal Of the property as
a going concern at $4,000. 600
Now the plain and Unmistakable point
IN ali this rs that If this company pays
10 the collector OF taxes Tor the District
OF Columbia an amount in taxes which
capitalized upon the TAXATION rates eS-
tablished BY law in tbs jurisdiction
equals an assessment valuation OF Sl3,-
0O0OO0. then the company is entitled 20
be appraised at 100000 for the pur-
pose OF fixing reasonable rate for its
services. A little reflection, Mr.. Chair
man, VIII be sufficient to satisfy your
mind and the minds OF the committee
that II this proposition is not true in Law
II should be so because 1ncOntroverubly
It Is true IN equity For IL must be evil
d mt that the Government that receives
annually from Us an amount that other
people would have TO pay upon $1,000
coo ought 20 be eQuitabiy estOpped from
denying that we have property enough
under legally established taxation rates
in this District 10 produce that amount.
The evidence shows that last year We
paid over 10 the collector Of taxes for
the District Of Columbia $4,000 in
cash, over and above other forms Of
the fact Is that we VIII pay this year
an amount apprOXimatinE $780, for
taxes upon our real and personal prop
eTty. and ] submit, apart from the rule
invoke, that that fact alone ought TO
carry home 10 the minds Of the commit
ia the conviction that the company
has invested capital OF an amount. ap-
prOximately at least. equal 20 SI3, 000. coo
OF which the valuation that has been
put upon the physical property OF 3d.
0o0.o10 In round numbers must be sub
stantially correct At least so close
TO being correct that the authorization
OF securities 70 represent that value,
$4,000, 900. cannot work injuriously TO the
public which as matters stand IS
ChaTgeable for reasonable returns upon
at least 10000 more than that sum
II this be true I think that 7 have
demonstrated. Mr.. Chairman. that IN
less the Washington GasIight Company
contemplates the Issuance with or with
out Congressional sanction Of securities
which. together with those now out
standing. viii exceed $1,000. 600 there
can be no occasion for apprehension on
the part OF Grvbcdy OF its exceeding its
constitutional common law and common
sense ghts u the premises
Charge Is Unfounded-
Il was my intention. NJ. Chairman. 70
discuss at some length another branch
Of the case. 20 wit TIE charge that
the price OF gas here as compared with
prices elsewhere, under fairly Ike con-
ditions. IL excessive which charge I
submit Is shown 10 be, by the testimony
which has been put into The cass by
DR.. Humphreys-whlch by the way IS the
only testimony IN Il upon this points
shown 10 be Just as unfounded as IS
the charge that its prices are excessive
as compared with going prices for the
other necessities Of life
Having thus disposed O. the Facts and
the law IN relation 70 tbs crucial point,
7 shall nov endeaEor 20 briefly review
the propositions Of law generally appi-
cable 20 q. the legal pOstulates which 1
had che honor 10 submit Tor your con
siderztion II the earlier part OF my
arguE1ent that you might the better
understand the scope OF It BEFORE pro
CeedinS 10 discuss these more OF less
technical propositions Il may. however
be urofitz bic for Us % briefly recaPttu-
late the charges 20 which I have a1-
dressed myself and the disposition
have .endeavored 10 make OF them The
first charge assigned. as a reason 10
sr4s4ffv the massage Of this BILL was,
as has been seen, that our pTeGeceS-
sors in office and title were guilty OF oe-
stroyinE the books Of the company
something like a generation ago. ana
tfaf therefore. IL was impossible for
Us 70 prove with any material PROOF
that our investment was ever actually
paid into the company by its sJocSholC-
ers This charge does not touch the
not left a shred Of 20 that can properly
be taken into account when you come
10 make I'D your Judgment upon the
merits % che bill
OF the company are and have been out
OF proportion 10 the actual value o. the
property. and are therefore grossly eN-
ceSsive. I think 7 have shown you. ana
Il there BE any doubt IN the minds OF
any Of Eou as 20 the correctness OF my
opinion IN that regard I am ready mere
nd now 70 snow YOU that the pTonJs OF
the company have never az any time
rH-T~ 10 4
II its property. Il IS true they have
Frequently exceeded S per cent and N
fact two Or three times that amount
upon the face value Of the company
csDira1 stock but I have talked 70 -.-tle
rs1-poSe 4 my argument has not made II
clear 70 all whom IL may concern that
The face value Of the stock has no
earthly relation 20 the reasonaoleness OF
Its charges the sole criterion OF NEE S--
IRE Of value known 10 the law. being
the actual value OF the property en-
DIoved irrespective Of whether the COM
vqnv has security capitalization or not
Rates Not Exorbitant-
A. 20 the third charge that our rates
are exorbitantIy high whether measured
nv actual cost OF by inherent value, OF
nv prices obtaining elsewhere, I fatter
myself that the evidence IN the case.
which Z have had the honor 70 analyze
20 the committee, -effeCtUally disOOses Of
this proposition also
The Fo.,-tn count that the Washing
ton Gas Light Company IS already over
C70iraIi-ed'- certainly viii receive fur
-he~ answer If the committee should
think II necessary when I came TO sum
I'D the law OF the case: and the E-ilCe
observation ray be properly made II
the committee VIII permit ne u the
9TH charge also. 70 Wit that II IS be
lieved to be immoral and iOelutta-ple
from q public point OF -ieW for public
service corporations 10 invest or rein
vest profits into EctteTments- or TO predi-
cate .ates mon their value when thus
n eli z capitalized
~ 10 the sixth and 10 the last charge
because IL Is more or less seriously
ella fnled by the proponents Of this pTOpO-
sifion-that even physical assets cannot
be cauitaI ized. either directly OF lDdi-
-ec1Iv. nv a public service corporation
without an invasion OF public rights The
zTavamen Of ti,IS charge is that cap
itaIfzafion. whether true or false, 50
involves the public equities
as 70 rates that its enlargement is
against publ. policy and should be 1e-
-aIIv prohibited. Therefore. that in this
pa -tiCuIar case the company should be
en5oined therefrOU- irrespective OF lis
right to the equal protection of the laws.
If as 10 this last charge the decisions
OF he supreme Court. which I have dis
cussed so much at length IN reviewing