Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-01-17

tanning them. It did. however. rec
ognize that there is a sense in which
the value Of the franchises must be
considered. Il recognized that the
value Of a rightfully existing struc-
ture which may be lawfully used Is
different from the value Of the same
structure without the legal right to
use il for the purpose for which 1t
was assembled. It recognized that 1t
is the franchise. the right TO operate
and if possible earn a dividend. that
makes the difference between a lot
of junk-pipes and the like-not
worth recovering from their situation
in the ground. and a completed gas
plant.
the municipalities the allowance
made by the board for going value
is again attacked.
"The argument advanced is a re-
statement Of that first made.
1T is fully answered in the brief
originally filed by the board. No pur-
pose would be served by an elabo-
ration Of the ground there taken.
Equal to Reproduction.
'In substance the position of the
municipalities is. that the. value Of
the plant as going concern, not only
ready for business, but with a bust
ness actually established, is not
greater than the bare cost of repro
duction of the physical plant.
1.-THE contrary is the fact, and the
fact has been uniformly recognized
in the adjudieations.
I'm the supplemental brief filed by
the company the miseonception as to
the action of the board in making
allowance for going value which
runs through the original brief, per-
sists.
81 again point out that the board
in reaching its determination as to
going value had before it the entire
record.
TITS report establishes that 1t con-
sidered and acted upon the entire rec
ord.
I'm considering and acting upon the
entire record It had before it various
definitions of going value
ut accepted that framed by Fred
erick P. Royce, an expert witness,
| produced by the company which in
cluded in going value practically all
elements of value which the company
may possess outside of its actual
structural value and the tangible
worth or value of its quick assets
AFTER an examination of all the
testimony of witnesses produced by
the board, the municipalities and the
company as to going value. the
board, impressed by the evident solid
ity of Mr. Royce's testimony as TO
the ratio of going value to structural
value, adopted his opinion that the
basis on which going value should
| in this case be calculated was 80
per cent. Of the structural value of
the plant
1T was on this basis that the board
found the total value of the COM
| nany's intangible property as of Oc-
tober l, 1911 including under this cap
ton all property over and above tan
gible or physical property, to be of a
| fair value of 81, OPS, 000.'
"In substance, then, the complaint
of the company comes to this: That
the board exercised its judgment on
the facts and accepted the opinion of
one Of the expert witnesses produced
| by the company rather than that of
another expert witness produced by
the company whose testimony was in
certain respects in conflict with that
of the former, and involved, in the
| Judgment of the board, certain erro-
neous assumptions of fact
After all is said one fact stands
out most prominently: The law pre-
scribes a reasonable return upon a
reasonable valuation, and what is a
reasonable return and what a reason
able valuation must vary with the
circumstances of each particular
case"