Evening star., 1915-02-10
COMMUTERS FIGHT
ON RATES RENEWED
Continued from First Pase.)

localities. the brief has this to say of
the Metropolitan branch service:
1.-The present service has none of tho
earmarks of the standard communication
service. Neither the frequency nor
speed Of trains Is comparable with
York. Chicago. Cincinnati. Cleveland or
Buffalo. AS to equipment-'our COM
muter-service coaches'-it is far worse
than the poorest around New York. the
Erie. The Metropolitan branch COM
muters have no half-hour or hourly
service. no after-theater service. no
midforenoon service. no club o. ma 'or
cars. The trains are either distance
trains serving points beyond Washing
ton junction or run primarily as milk
trains; such trains as by stretch OF
imagination may be termed commute
ton trains are but eight each way per
was seventeen years ago.
1T is unfair to attempt to place on q
parity the fares for standard commuta-
tton service with the inferior commuta-
tion service. 1t might be as reasonably
argued that one should pay for a par
lor-car seat. although not occupying
1t. because there exists somewhere else
such accommodation.
No Test Of Reasonableness.
That because the carriers serving
Washington with alleged commutation
service have agreed to raise the fares
and such Is of record herein-such
fact gives no test OF reasonableness,
out, on the contrary, calls for closer
scrutiny and more definite proof
That the fares for standard COM
mutation service have, as a whole.
never never received the approval of this and
thereof.
The proposed fares are in amount
substantially those condemned as un-
reasonable and unjust in the Commute
tion rate case"
Cost Of Service Attacked.
The complainants' attorneys then
take up the question Of the alleged un.
ntableness of the service, and make
the following comment on the figures
adduced In the respondents testimony:
Before considering these computa-
tions. 1t may properly be said that they
are subject to most serious adverse
criticism. The figures are made I'D on
averages for the Baltimore division;
the figures are incomplete; an engine
is an engine. irrespective of its rat
ing, Of the train 1t pulls and Of the
amount OF coal and other supplies
"hlcn II actually uses. The engine
used In the particular service is finan
claIIy made to be the average engine.
Nothing was allowed for the express
receipts Each train Is charged $2.4s
as Washington terminal costs; this
cnarge aggregates substantially one.
half Of the total alleged direct ex.
penses for operation.
The right to charge against these
trains making short runs such terminal
expense must be seriously doubted: II
does not appear that at Baltimore and
eIsewnere any such terminal expense
II included In operating costs. II the
averages have been properly arrived
at. they already include terminal ex-
pense: as a result there would be a
duplication Of the charge.
me ngures submitted are applied In
certaln cases to a greater number Of
trains than are now being operated in
Communication service; no deduction has
been made for trains which have been
discontinued. All commuters were not
nciuded The figures are admittedly
Alleged Facts Held Back.
Tho brief further declares that 1t is
well settled that rates must be rea-
sonable TO the public, Irrespective of
financial returns to the utility; the
Constitution does not guarantee diyt-
dends." A rate cannot be reasonabl
unless 1t Is clearly not in excess Of tba
value Of the service. the brief further
asserts.
After picking alleged flaws in the
testimony Of the defendants witnesses
and pointing to failure to produce evi-
dence which would be of value to the
commission In deciding the case, the
eomplainants' con attorneys assert that
the pending case. as a whole, is strik.
ingly like one recently before this
commission. which: It was said: In
this case not all of the facts, circum-
stances and conditions which are re
quired to determine the reasonable
ness and justice of an interstate rate
are before u.s."
In concluding. the brief says that "It
Is respectfully submitted that the re-
spondent has wholly failed to sustain
the burden Of proof cast upon it by
the statute concerning the reasonable
ness of the proposed advanced commu.
tation fares between points on the
metropolitan branch and the city of
washington: that the present commu-
tation fares are fully adequate to fur
nlsh respondent a profit for perform
ing the service: that the said commu-
tation fares are both reasonable and
Just. and that the tariff now under sus-
pension should by order he "a apcoIaan