The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-05-03
COPNS FINANCES ARE GIVEN COMTTEE CONSE


public without receiving just compensa-
ton for the services rendered"
And again, on page 81:
What the company IS entitled 10 ask
is a fair return from the value - that
which = employs for the pubic con
And again In San Diego. etc, vs. Ma
tiOnal City. ia L S, page 20. Mr.. jus
tice Harlan. delivering the unanimous
/ opinion OF the court says
What the company is entitled 70 de-
mand. in order that II may have Just
compensation, is fair return upon
THE TINE IT IS BEING USED FOR
THE PUBLIC
And IN the case Of stanislaws vs.. San
Joaquin. l92 L s. page POI, M justice
Peckham, delivering the unanimous
opinion Of the court, says
IN san Diego VS.. National city Il was
hello following Smyth vs. Amesl thai
what the company was entitled TO de-
mand in order that il might have just
compensation was a fair return upon
reasonable value OF the property at the
time Il Is being used for the public p"
Again, IN Southern Pacific vs. Railway
Commissioners, Is Federal Reports,
pag Z36-262-
1T is now vel settled that legislation
prescribing traffic rates, gas Or sges-
and water rites must be reasonable as
regards bots the company and the puo-
sonable OF not is eminently q question
for Judicial investigation.
Again In Louisville. etc, vs. Brown
133 Federal Reports. II was held.
That e railroad company IS entitled
to earn at least the legal rate Of Inter
est upon the actual value OF It's prop
erty"
And finally. as 70 this point.
IF II be not true that actual value
fthe value Of the property and not
nominal value (the face value OF the
-
reasona bleness-why did the leg stature
Of Maryland a few weeks ago pass an
act providing for such valuations IN
every such case2 And coming nearer
home, why did the House OF Repre-
sentatives- on Friday last, by "a two
thirds vote, pass an amendment TeGulT-
ing the Interstate Commerce COmmis-
sion 20 make exhaustive appraiSernenrs
Of the property Of every railroad doing
Interstate business II the par value
OF the stock IS not the true measure n
Overcapitalized cases. how can II hon
estly be said 70 be so IN undercapitelized
cases2 Is net sauce for the goose stiil
sauce for the Eauder- II YOU cannot
go behind the returns, 50 10 speak-to
show real value in one case--hOE can
YOU do so 10 show want OF value IN the
other?
Fair PROFIT Permitted
In Regan vs.. Farmers Loan and
Trust Company, ia Z. s. It wa held
that:
The rate to be obnoxious 10 the
Constitution must permit a reasonable
profit on the cOmpauy's property
All public-servce corporations have
a right 20 make and distribute earnings
upon the actual value OF the property
employed in the conduct OF their bust
ness. irrespective OF its ownership
and, Of course, irrespective OF the face
value or par value OF the securities
outstanding against it-or OF their own
ership.
1t Is q weu-known fact that q great
number, experimenting a. least 100 gas
companies throughout the country. are
operated under lease by either the
United Gas Improvement company O
Pennsylvania or by some OF the several
other companies doing similar bust
ness
g. The Company's franchises are prop
erty, and as such are assets upon which
II IS entitled 20 predicate earnings
The third proposition IS sustained y
a long line Of unanimous decisions,
number OF which have already been
cited, ending n the last case IN the
Justice Peckham, speaking FOX unani-
nous court in the New York COnSoli-
dased Gas Case. in which he says, with
QUE Qualification 1T cannot be disputed
that franchises OF this nature are prop
[ erty and cannot be taken OF used BY
others without compensation"
L support Of this declaration he cites
I the leading case OF the Monongshela
page 3D. People " OrBrien, III New
York. and other cases IN thu 1TOnou-
gaheIa case. relied upon BY Justice
Peckham. Judge Brewer deltveTfZ- the
unanimous opinion OF the CouT-- held
that even II 3 case in which Congress
had actually forbade the valuation OF
franchise, STILL THAT WAS AN Is
SENTEAL PART OF THE PROPERTY
I n ~
be Constitutionally deprived either BY
( act OF Congress or otherwise" The
other case relied upon, the very ceIe-
bTated case OF People VI o BTiE-. BY
a unanimous court, has long stOou pre-
eminent on account Of the signal ability
OF Chief Justice RuSer,- who delivered
the opinion. and the eminence OF cou1-
sci VINO appeared IN II conspicuous
among whom being Nj Elfhu Root, TIE
junior Senator from New York The
opinion IS exhaustive Of the law On the
subject UP 20 the date Of its rendition.
Among the significant declarations in
Il are the following:
TT has been earnestly commended for
the state that such q franchise Is q
mere license and privilege and enjoy
able during the life OF the grantee only,
and revoka bic al the win OF the state
We believe this proposition 20 be not
only re7uCnant TO justice and reason
but contrary 10 the Uniform course AZ
authority IN this country
DdSlS u DcClS4Ou-
The whole decision in THIS case rests
broadly on the proposition that rrsn-
chises are property. and cannot Be re-
Pealed by the state without just con-
pensation. and that any other doctrine
would be destructive Of an fnoalcuIsbIe
amount Of property and OF corporate
life and business generally in this coun-
try
4 That public utilities do not have to
be incorporated Their rights relative 10
those OF the public as to rates being
mutual one and inSeparabIe and wholly
independent Of paper capitalization.
The charter Of this company IS svfH-
Cient proof Of the fact that incorDora-
ton is unnecessary Every Amendments
that Congress has made thereto during
the last % years has specifically prO-
vided that Il shall apply equally 20 every
person, copartDership. associatic-, or
corporation in the District Of Columbia
making and selling gas Obvious,- the
rate would be the same II the business
were carried on by q natural person in
stead OF al artificial person q co-Dora-