The Washington herald., 1911-03-18

The Interstate Commerce Commission
Yesterday handed down a decision in the
case of o. G. Bcall. d resident of Del
| Ray, Va, against the Washington.
! Alexandria and Mount Vernon Railroad
! Company, ordering that company to re-
| ducc its single trip fare for five small
| towns between here and Alexandria
! from l. to 10 cents.
As the report. in summing up and an
swcring the arguments of the defendant
company. pays marked attention to the
! financial condition Of the road. and
charged gross over capitalization, the
decision may bc taken as an indication
that this feature will be carefully looked
| into by ,he commission in the consid-
Grafton Of future rate cases.
Cause of Complaint.
! Tho petition puts in issue tn" reason
abIeness Of the cOmpany's single rate
! fare from this city to Four Mile Run.
| St. Elmo. st. Asaph, Mount Ida. and
| Del Ray, Va. The complaint is that
| the fares mentioned are equal to those
! applying from Washington to Alexandria,
although tho distance to Alexandria Is
about two miles more than the average
distance between Washington and the
group OF towns above mentioned, which
are Intermediate to Alexandria.
The report says in part:
Tho defense presented by the railway
company may. in a general way. be di-
vided into three heads. First it is as
serted the passenger travel from the
complaining towns is light and therefore
l,at 70 ig f1I
would be maintained if the traffic were
OF greater density.
second. that any reduction in fares is
! unwarranted because ii is only within
the last few years that the stock OF this
railroad has ever paid any dividends
and those paid have been very meaSer.
and have recently been reduced. if not
abandoned altogether Third. il denies
/ in its answer that il is subject TO the act
| to regulate commerce.
'Dcfcndant argues that the passenger
rcvenLe derived from these small COM
munitiCs does not pay for the service
rendered. and that they are the beneficl-
aries Of the facilities provided to accom-
mOdatc the heavy passenger travel be
tween Washington and Alexandria This
may wei be true, and Yet have no bear
ing up the reaSonabIcnesS of the present
charge. Certainly it ought not to be
expected that these communities should
bear an undue portion OF the cost of a
Transportation service designed, and for
the most part used, to meet the require
ments of other and larger communities;
nCr does the fact that defendant, in or
der to furnish adequate service to the
large cities at its termini. operates
through these towns many more trains
:han are necessary to their needs. war
rant the eNartiOn Of Il charge in proper
ton to the frequency Of the service in
CIdcntaIIy furnished. II might well be
assumed that inaSmuCh as the present
service must be maintained TO accom-
modatc the travel between Washington
ard Alexandria any additional traffic Sc
cured from the intermediate points is IN
the nature of a net gain to the carrier.
Report Finances
An examination of the defendants an
nual reports to the commission for the
years in which such reports have been
made u9NS 1879. and 1870, fails to indi-
cate that its financial condition is so dis
tressinE as is suggested in it's brief The
total capital issued against its nineteen
imles of line up to June 50. 1910, is
50, 900, or $2O7, ,S94.74 per mile of line,
composed of $2,45OOoO per cent bonds
secured by a mortgage on the entire
propertp, Of which S115, 900 is held in the
treasury. and $l.5OO.OOO of capital stock
Neither the amount of money invested in
the property devoted to the service of
the public nor the consideration re-
ceived from the sale of stocks and bonds
is disclosed; and in the absence OF ex-
PLANTATION. this seems plainly A case OF
gross OverCa pitalization.
Assuming that the actual investment
in the property is $4,000 per mile OF
line, or 100000 in all, the earnings in
1910 were sufficient. after having aside
a surplus, to return about IS per cent
uponp the investment Again, assuming
that all Of the 300 trips between Wash
ington and the communities involved had
been under a lO-Cent fare. and none of
such trips under rOundtrip or commu-
tation fares, the net loss to defendant
would have been 81. 900; and it would
still have been able to meet interest
charges on its large capital, pay all
operating expenses, declare a dividend OF
2 per cent on its stock. and lay aside
a surplus of more than $4,000.
although defendant asserts in its an
swer that it is not subject to the act
to regulate commerce, the point is not
mentioned in it's brief and VIC do not
understand that it seriously pressed the
matter. Defendant is, beyond question, a
common carrier by railroad of ppapssen-
gers and property between points in the
State of Virginia and points in the Dis
trict of Columbia, and therefore is sub
ject to the statute here invoked. 1t files
tariffs and statistical reports in accord
ance with the act and seems heretofore
to have considered itself subject to the
jurisdiction of the commission"
While the decision is not expected to
have any marked effect on the COM
pany's earnings, even so far as the
towns in question are concerned, mas
much as it deals only with the single
trip fares and leaves the round trip and
communication unmolested, it is expected
in some quarters to pave the way to an
attack on these schedules by the resi-
dents of the towns in question