The Washington herald., 1910-05-03

NA+N e's'A@A- t~NHAA AclH ADlilpdlig Gun
templates the Issuance with or without
Congressional sanction Of securities
which, together with those now out
standing. will exceed 100000, there can
be no occasion for apprehension on the
part Of anybody Of its exceeding it's con-
stitutional common law and common
sense rights in the premises.
1t was my intention, Mr.. Chairman,
to discuss at some lengths another
branch Of the case, TO wit: The charge
that the price Of gas here as compared
with prices elsewhere under fairly like
conditions is excessive. which charge I
submit is shown TO be, by the testimony
which has been put into the case by
DR.. HUmphreys-which by the way is the
only testimony in It upon this point-ls
shown to 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 Of the facts and
the law in relation 70 this crucial
point I shall now endeavOr 10 briefly re-
view the propositions Of law generally ap-
EA-NeNfsP W ~ AsAN 4frdA lg.AAAaAfo NiAANAA
! had the honor TO submit for your con-
sideratiOn in the earlier part OF my
argument that you might the better un-
derstand the scope -0f II. Before pro-
ceeding 20 discuss these more or less
technical propositions. il may. however,
be profitable for US 70 briefly recapitulate
the charges to which ! have addressed
myself and the disposition I have en-
deavored 20 make Of them. The first
charge assigned, as a reason 10 justify
the passage Of this Bill. was, as has been
seen, that our predecessors in Office and
title were guilty Of destroying the books
OF the Company something like a gen
Grafton ago, and that. therefore Il was
impossible for us 10 prove with any
material proof that our investment was
ever actually paid into the Company by
its stockholders. This charge does not
touch the case at all, and submit that
there is not left shred Of IL that can
properly be taken into account when you
come TO make up your judgment upon
the merits Of the Bill
The second charge was that the profits
Of the Company are and have been out Of
! proportion 10 the actual value OF the
property and are therefore grossly ex-
/ cessive. I think I have shown you, and
/ If there be any doubt IN the minds Of any
Of you as 10 the correctness of my
I opinion in that regard, I am ready here
and now 70 show you that the profits
OF the Company have never al any time
I exceeded 6 - per cent upon the value
/ q its property. Il Is true they have
/ frequently exceeded s per cent. and IN
I fact two or three times that amour,
upon the face value Of the Company's
/ capital stock; but have talked TO little
purpose If my argument has not made
/ IL clear 20 all whom II may concern that
I the face value OF the stock has nC
earthly relation 10 the reasonableness
/ OF its charges, the sole criterion. OF
measure Of value known 10 the law
/ being the actual value OF the property
/ employed irrespective Of whether tht
Company has security capitalization OF
not
/ AS 10 the third charge that our rate,
! are exorbitantly high whether measured
/ by actual cost or by inherent value. or by
prices obtaining elsewhere, fatter my,
/ self that the evidence in the case. which
/ I have had the honor TO analyze to IN,
I Committee. effectually dlsposes Of thi.
/ proposition also.
! The fourth count that the Washington
/ Gas Light Company is already over
/ capitalized certainly viii receive FUR
ther answer II the Committee shoulJ
( think II necessary when come 10 sun
up the law OF the case; and the sam,
( observation may be properly made, (
/ the Committee viii permit me, OF n,
I fifth charge. also. 10 wit. that Il is be
/ leved 10 be immoral and inequitabl,
I from a public point OF view for publi
/ service corporations 10 invest or rein
vest profits into betterments. or to predi
cate rates upon their value when thu
/ in effect capitalized.
As TO the sixth and 70 the last charge
because 1t is more or less seriousl!
claimed by the proponents Of this prop
osition-that even physical assets canno
be capitalized. either directly or lndi
rectly, by a public service corporation
/ without an invasion Of public rights
! The gravamen Of this charge IS tha
/ capitalization, whether true or false, s.
I necessarily involves the public eQuitie
as 10 rates, that its enlargement
against public policy and should b
legally nrohibited- Therefore, that Il
this particular case the Company shoul,
be enjoined therefrom. irrespective Of It
right TO the equal protection Of the laws
II as to this last charge the decision
Of the Supreme Court. which have dis
cussed so much at length in reviewing
the leading cases on the subject III
! Chicago & Milwaukee Railroad Company
etc, VS.. Manning, etc. is not sufficient
1 think 1 shall be able 10 dispose of I
in a very few minutes by further cita
tons 70 the same effect in all the othe
leading cases Involving the same ques
tions which have come before the Cour
for a third of a century.
Gentlemen Of the Committee, the lega
propositions which. with all due respec
it is submitted, define our rights and tn
rights Of the public and limit you
powers in the premises, may be brlen
summarized as follows:
l. An established rate can not be con
sidered excessive unless II can be show
that lower rate will yield a reasonabl
return upon the actual value of tn
property used for the convenience Of tn
public.
In addition to the authorities alread
cited 1 beg TO refer the Committee t
the celebrated dictum Of the learne
Justice Brewer in Ames VS.. Railway, 6
Federal Reports. page 176:
The foundation Of reasonableness
justice"
In smyth VS.. Ames, ls9 L. S, 466, tn
Supreme Court says page 546):
The corporation may not be required t