The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-04-29
AFFAIRS OF THE WASHINGTON GAS COMPANY

1870 ~N'oAuClVut BdS VI NoNSl AZ " o.'i4-
ington?
Returning TO Teasonableness OF prices:
/ want to emphasize what have already
said, that l have been speaking Of rela-
/ tive values only. demonstrating 1 am
confident. beyond the power Of successful
contradiction, that gas is among the
cheapest things. II not the very cheapest
thing, on earth; but not arguing that il
may not be sold stiIl cheaper in the
future We are not wanting twhatever
may be said or thought TO the contrary
| In sympathy for our friends and Gus
| toners, nor attempting to minimize their
equities. That would be ungenerous, silly
and short-sighted. Looking at it 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 il IS that regulates the
natural law as well as the law OF the
land as 70 reasonableness Of rates. That
depends upon other considerations than
it's cheapness per se-depends upon its
cheapness relative to the value OF the
plant. materials employed in the process
and the conditions under which il is pro-
duced
Gentlemen OF the Committee. you may
make at least some Of those conditions
favorable or unfavorable 20 economic pro-
duction according to your pleasure. But
IN all franllness. the legislation you are
now considering Is not calculated 10 pro-
mote the consummation devoutly TO be
desired.
a s.1f
question you must not only disabuse your
minds Of bias i'm regard 20 Il. bat you
must qualify your ability 10 fairly pass
upon II by ascertaining 20 a reasonable
certainty the basic factor IN the equation
and that is. not what the profits are or
may be in themselves. but what they are
relative 10 the actual value Of the plant
used in producing them. For as Hamlet
said Of the play: That's the thing" And
! MAY truly add that is the only thing IN
the last analysis upon which reasona BILE
ness can be either fairly or legally predi,
! Gated
I Unfortunately there Is no longer a way
by which this basic fact, the value 81
the plant, can be judicially ascertaineC
{ at present. There was a way-a SUR
? and simple way. IL is believed: a way
b safeguarded by the Supreme Court OF In,
| United States But Congress IN its wis
dom thought proper. as we have ALREADY
seen. 10 foreclose f.. and we are force,
20 other methods Of appraisal which il
part have already been glanced al bu
J should be more particularly pointed on
2 10 YOU perhaps that YOU may fully uu
2 derstand that the Company has endeav
ored in good faith. for the benefit Of al
whom II may concern. TO furnish yo,
E with tie best information obtaineble upoi
Il this vital point
D Last summer. Gentlemen OF the Com
mittee. agreeably 20 suggestion from
( the Interstate Commerce Commission. a
s l explained 20 you AZ the last hearing
e the Company concluded 10 employ n
. most competent concern II could find Z
T inventory and value its properties Tina
\ concern. as you have seen. was the we'll
= known firm OF Humphreys & Glasgow
n who. with the assistance OF five or ST
r Of the best qualified Of our local bust
= ness men. made an impartial apprsisa
OF its assets: the net result OF who's
d ! labors duly appears in the statement q
~
o ended To make their findings doubl
. sure, the Company had them all care
2 fully reviewed by the American Aud
? Company, one OF the most conservativ
e houses IN its line OF business in IN
r world-tor il enjoys an internationS
y reputation You nave the result OF a
:. OF their labors before you. and I Al
= rot going TO devote any more OF IN
Of time allotted 20 me 20 their findings othe
IT than 10 confirm them BY the testimOn
d OF the law OF the land applicable, as W
o shall see. in such cases
2, l have. therefore. no hesitation what
n ever in again submitting. Mr.. Chairman
L that we have established certihcatio
y that entities our appraisal until it sha
J. have been successfully challenged 20 YOU
l. unqualified confidence and respect
y We have gone into the matter OF III
" appraisement more at length than "
Is otherwise should have done because
!; unquestionably involves. I feel jusuhe
" in reiterating. the basic question @
z. which the whole case rests. For II II
y appraisement OF the plant, exclusive
y the franchises. is to be taken as sui
il stantially correct. il follows that Il
al Company is entitled 10 a rate for i
r product that will yield a reasonable r
r turn upon a tangible value basis tn,
p IS nearly 400 per cent greater, and upc
a going value basis over 500 per Gel
ID greater. than the face or par value
4 its stock In other words, II follows.
s. the night follows the day, that % p
{. cent dividends on the stock is in leg
le intent and effect only dividend OF fl
d. 80 per cent upon the physical proper
a and less than four ca per cent upon u
Or entire property OF the Company used
NJ II in the conduct Of its business. TIL
N fact. II il be a fact, individually esta
IS fishes the Companys legal right and III
r, to be released from the burden Of In
,k resolution unless il can be shown
100 somebody that there is some reason
IN doubt the rule laid down in Chicae
Sc Milwaukee and St Paul presently 10
ne anaiyzedl, In Gibbon vs. Mahon (hereaft
r. to be reviewed., in Western Union '
is Williams repeatedly cited and affirm
p by the Supreme Court Of the Unit
IN States. that every public service CO
nd poration has legal and moral right
by q security capitalization, either expires
ed or implied. equal 10 the actual val
Id Of its property. of which it cannot
or properly derived without due process
Of law
y In support of this contention I beg
III call your attention to the leading decisi
e. upon the subject in the celebrated ca
- of Chicago. Milwaukee and St Paul. &
ct VS. Minnesota. 134 Z. S. Supreme Cou
ur Reports. page as &c, the pertinency
m which to the controversy here must
is obvious to every impartial mind:
ad .s-rna ouestiop of the reasonable OF