Evening journal., 1911-11-18
Mr.. Ward Closes
Argument in Ticket Fight

tContinued from First Page.)
ing accepted the new constitution. the
only way its charter could be re-
voked would be through proceedings
taken by the Attorney-General under
general law for that purpose. Con-
tinuing he said the company should
have some compensation. after all
expenses had been deducted from re-
ceipts.
The fact that the company had
been remodeling its system from
time to time, he said, showed that
money had been applied to new ma
chinery and other things. At present
the aiildayits stated the valuation Of
the system to be S2,500,0O0. Referring
TO MIR. Hon. who claims the property
can be duplicated for S1,43O,000, Mr..
Ward said others who have been con-
nected with the company, and are in
position to know. as we'll as Mr.
Hoh said it is valued at S2.500,0O0.
Mr. Ward spoke of the decisions Of
the u. S. Supreme Court on points in-
volved and claimed that the court
to q reasonable return on the present
valuation, after all other expenditures
had been paid
He said that the present trolley was
the first one to be operated. A great
deal of money was used in making it
the best IN those days, and IL the
capital invested was not to be COM
pensated, it seemed hard Tor the in5
yestors.
Mr.. Ward said the company had
tried hard to place a value on the
plant at present. Arriving at this
the question arises, What are we
allowed to do with our gross income ?'
This - he explained, lis used in main-
tanning the roads, repairing and
further to earn a sum for depreciation.
to be set aside yearly. Mr. Hoh said
$4,000 should be set aside yearly for
this. while others have said 100000, -
Mr. Ward added.
Decisions governing the covering Of
depreciation were read by Mr.. Ward.
This position was not denied, accord
ing to Mr., Hastings. representing the
Board Of Utilities Commission. Mr..
Ward said that what loss the removal
OF the strip tickets amounted too, had
to be considered from the company's
accounts. He then read a statement
showing that from the years 1865 to
1879 the company had paid no divi-
dend ON its capital stockA-and in
many years the dividend amounted to
about , or 4 per cent. He said that
during the first year the present
company held the system, there was
a deficit of 100000 or more not count
ing the depreciation. This had to be
made up by fresh capital. He claimed
that the restoration of the cent fare
was the only method which could be
taken 90 safeguard the company for
the money invested. Mr.. Ward then
closed by citing several cases bearing
out his contention
After Mr.. Ward had concluded
City Solicitor Hastings presented the
briefs of the Utilities Commi>-> n. MT.
Hastings will argue the commissions
case this afternoon
Citing Law Authorities.
Argueing on the point brought out
In the morning by Judge Bradford IN
the United States Court, yesterday, In
the strip ticket case, as 10 whether he
could maintain suit in the bnitee
states Court, when he could have an
pealed to the state Courts, II. III
Ward, counsel for the Wilmington
and Philadelphia Traction Company
took up the entire afternoon Of cour'
reading court decisions on similar
questions, in other states, and further
made other contentious in support ol
his appearance in the federal tribunal
and the rights of the railway company
Mr.. Ward quoted court Onions that
the United state Court had jurisdic.
ton in such cases as the present one
Notwithstanding there was a remedy
in the State Courts, but this remedy
was not extensive enough, Mr. Ward
thought
Mr. Ward contended that the BOARD
Of Utilities Commissioners directed his
clients to reduce the trolley fare. H'
maintained that the fare never was
increased. the six for twenty-five cents