The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1914-03-17
Says Rate Reductions Orderd
Would Wipe Out All
Net Revenue
JUDICIAL DECISION
WILL BE OBTAINED
Not derstood-Reduction in Val
uation Characterized as Arbitrary
-Four Courses Open

Vice President +. X. Hall of the
New England Telephone & Telegraph
company made today the following
statement of the position of that com.
panY relative to the order issued By
the majority of the public service
commission Of Vermont:
Never before in the history of the
New England Telephone Telegraph
company has it taken any appeal from
any order or recommendation by any
commission, either state or federal.
Circumstances surrounding the present
/ case, however, are peculiar and the
| finding is one which the company is
/ unable TO understand in view of the
facts and the evidence presented to the
commission.
Ia justice to the telephone using pub
lie in the state of Vermont and the
| other states where the company ope-
| rates, as well as in justice to the com
pany itself, the officers of the company
| feel that il Is their duty to appeal from
the decision of the majority of the
commission III this case, and wish to
state frankly why such an action seems
TO be the only course fairly open to
them.
Would Wipe Out Profits.
The net revenue of the Neg Eng
land company on its Vermont business
at the present time represents less than
a two per cent return on the value of
the property located in Vermont The
reductions proposed by the msiofity cf
the commission would practically wipe
out all of this ret revenue.
+ Although the commission admits.
In its opinion, that the company is en-
titled 70 earn at least per cent, il
undertakes TO establish by the order
Of the majority q set of rates under
which it would be impossible to earn
over ] per cent, provided the company
continued to maintain its plant and
the quality Of itS service.
The majority opinion seeks to Justify
these apparently contradictory eonelu-
>ionS by arbitrarily reducing the value
Of the companys property as
shown hv the uGcontradicted evidence
in the case, to IA figure far below its
actual cost and far below what it
woIld cost to replace it in its present
condition. lit then proceeds to arbitra
fily reduce. on paper, various actual
costs Of maintaining the plant and
furnishing the service by making va
rious assumptions as TO values and
costs which are not only not based
oil any evidence presented at the hear
ing. but which are distinctly contrary
to the uncontradieted evidence in the
case.
Some Delicate Sarcasm.
Tie majority Of the commission then
present a compilation of figures based
Oh these various assumptions which
they argue justifies the reduction.
suggested and which. they argue
shows how the company might get ,
per cent return on this theoretical in
l.estment. Bv carrying these assump
tious still further and by arbitrarily
on paper. reducing the value ef tht
: company 5 property by 80 per ceat in
stead Of by . per cent. it would ob
viou-lv he possible to Justify on pa
per still more liberal reduction il
tine rates.
Unfortunately for the company, how
ever, upon whom rests the actual re
+ sponsibility of furnishing the service
= these assumptions do not help yer,