The Washington times., 1911-09-28
COMMON SENSE AND THE
TRANSFER ISSUE.

4
like O. lawyer, and also likeS a man of
sense, in regard to this universal trans
fer question. Similar instances have
been recorded before.
Mr.. Thomas will probably intervene
in the transfer litigation between the
Baltimore and Washington and the
Capital Traction companies. Here is
what he told the House District Com
mittee last year:
Can 1t be foretold that the universal
| transferl legislation is destructive or
confiscatory until after the operation of
| the universal transfer system for
reasonable time?
From which anybody can see that
Mr.. Thomas has read the views of the
Supreme Court in the Consolidated Gas
case.
In that case the master in chancery
held that the So-cent gas rate in New
York city would produce, on the basis
of existing business and conditions, a
fraction over 6 per cent returns on the
Consolidated Gas stock. The court had
held that 8 per cent was reasonable
rate.
So the gas company was sure of
winning. But it didn't. The Supreme
Court acted like plain, sensible citi-
zen. In effect it said:
We want this company to get its 8
per cent. II this calculation is right II
| will not get that much. But we guess
we'll let it be tried. Maybe the busi-
ness will be larger at the lower rates;
maybe the company will employ better
methods and save more. Anyhow, 1t Will
be time to talk about conflscation after
something Is shown by experience to
be in the way Of confiscation.
Seems almost too simple and under
standable for a Supreme Court to say,
doesn't it! But that was the sub
stance of the great Consolidated Gas
decision which gave New York S0-cent
gas.
What happened? The sO-cent rate
went into effect at once. The gas COM
pany paid back to consumers several
millions that they had been over
charged during the period of litigation.
Then it got down to the business of
making profits at so cents.
Did it go brokeH Did its property
fall into bad repairH Did the bond
holders grab it for failure to pay in
teresti
Not noticeably. The company made
so much money in the first year under
the new rate that instead of earning a
trifie over per cent it earned near o,
and paid the dividend just as usual, and
had neat surplus besides. Every year
since it has done still better.
Think of that when you read that
General Harries and Mr.. Norment and
Treasurer Ham, and the rest of our
street car managers are losing sleep
for fear we will take their cars away
from them with this universal transfer
business.
The truth is that we are setting up
malicious job to compel these gentle
men to earn some additional profits
for themselves and their stockholders.
That's all there is to it.
Messrs. .Harries, Norment, ct al. are
nice gentlemen; but they don't care
for money. They have higher, more
inspiring, more ethereal and elevating
ambitions than the sordid purpose of
money -grubbing.
Not for them to make a lot more
money. They don't need it. Universal
transfers would serve them just as it
did the Consolidated Gas: 1t would
make more business and more profits.
Feeling mighty kindly toward these
pleasant gentlemen, appreciating their
peculiarly lofty motives and aspira-
tions, we feel that their dislike of mere
money-getting ought not to be per-
mitted to become a weakness. 1t might
be bad for them in their old age, when
they may need the coin.
On the whole, if they are unwilling
to take the money that wants to come
their way, why not force them to take
iti
Why not just compel them to in
crease profits and dividends, just as the
Consolidated did, by being liberal with
the publici
Corporation Counsel Thomas seems
to have the idea. Go to it, Mr..
Thomas. Make 'em take the money!