Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-12-28
FOR GALL|NGER BILL
Commissioners State Position
on Public Utilities.
SEND LETTER TO CAPITOL
Urge Payment of Expenses on Half
and-Half Principle.
AMENDMENT IS FAVORED
Why the Measure Is Preferred to the
One in the House-Universal
Transfers Endorsed.
SEND LETTER TO CAPITOL
AMENDMENT IS FAVORED

Complete approval of the Gallinger bill
TO regulate public utilities in the District
# Columbia and to confer on the District
commissioners the powers Of a public
utilities commission was sent to the Sen
ate District committee today by the Com
inissioners, and with il went an approval
for "a supplementary bill which provides
for universal transfers In approving the
general idea of a public utilities commits
sion the Commissioners have recommend
ed strongly that the Gallinger bill be sc
amended that the expenses OF the COM
mission shall be paid on the half-and-
half plan. and not entirely out Of the rev.
enueS of the District, as the bill provides
This point Was especially recommended
by Commissioner Rudolph. and the letter
10 Senator Gallnger closes with these
words:
The Commissioners see no reason why
in violation of the act of 1878, the ex-
penses of the commission should be borne
by the District alone. They recommend
that the bill be amended so as to pro-
vide that appropriations for the use of
the commissioners be made on the half
and-half plan"
The Commissioners recommend the pas
sage of the Gallinger bill rather than the
Oldheld bill in the House. giving reasons
which are indicated by references to the
hundred or more sections Of the bills.
Comparison With House Bill.
In effect the Commissioners report as
follows:
The Commissioners. after a careful
study of the whole subject, and after ex-
haustive researches by the corporation
counsel, from whom they have received
most valuable advice, are OF the opinion
that the bill under consideration will in a
general S2fiSfa acfnrilv- -gaIy-a No nrnf-
lem of the control of local public utilities
They invite attention to the following
remarks. however, as they may be sug-
gest We to the committee of the advisa-
bilfty of few minor changes in the text
of the bill
"A bill with similar end in view was
introduced in the House of Representa-
tives December 81 1911 (H r. 16Jfs5) The
essent al differences between the Senate
and the House bills are as follows:
The Senate bill, section 8. adopts in a
modified form the MARYLAND provision for
valuation The House bill, sections and
.. adopts the Wisconsin provision. Ac-
cording to the Senate bill the Fair value
Is to be ascertained.
The House bill requires that there be
ascertained, in addition to the fair value,
the investment cost and the cost Of re-
production Now the Supreme Court, In
an opinion by Mr.. Justice Harlan in the
case OF Smyth agt. Ames. has declared
that among other elements entering into
the fair value. which i, states is "the
basis or all calculations as to the reason
ableness of rates. are the original cost of
construction and 1.-The present as compar-
ed with the original cost of construction"
In other words. 1T would seem that the
Senate and House bills attain the same
end in the matter. although by slightly
different methods The House bill has
the advantage of being more specific.
The Senate bill has the adv ..ltage of
greater elasticity.
With respect to stock and bond is
sues. again it may be said that the
House bill adopts the Wisconsin pro-
vision. and is very specific. The Senate
bill. though less specific as to the man.
ner of control, appears to confer upon
the commission ample power to exer-
templates.