Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1915-03-03
Challenges Assertions Made by
Corporations Counsel ReIa-
tive to Public Equity.
BRANDS STATEMENTS
BY BERGEN AS FALSE
Public Utility Lawyer Terms
Other CounseI's Talk as
''Bit of Rhetoric"
Prom . stan Correspondent.


before the Court OF Errors and APP
peals in the rehearing OF the ninety
cent gas case, on the appeal of the
Public Service Gas Company for
review of the decision of the Board
Of Public Utility Commissioners, was
continued today. Most of the dav
WAS taken up by the counsel for the
utility board and the cities involved.
The commission was represented by
Frank H Sommer. of Newark. while
Edward F. Mercy, city counsel for
Paterson, made the argument for
Paterson, and Albert o. Miller and
George L Record appeared for the
city OF Passaic.
Mr.. Sommes, in the very opening OF
his argument, challenged the state
! ments made by Frank Bergen. OF
counsel for the Public Service Com
pany, in Mr.. Bergens argument yes
terday. He said they were state
mems OF fact made without founda-
tion or in distorted form. irrsespec-
tive OF their source" and added:
These statements not, only do not
accord with the facts, but they are
so framed as to throw about the ar
gument and consideration of the case
an atmosphere of antagonisn Thsy
are skillfully designed. on the one
hand, to create q state of mental
fear of the consequences to ensue
upon the States policy of regulation,
and. on the other, to carry the i'm
preston that the action of the board
vested with the administration OF this
policy Is arbitrary. and dictated
neither by justice nor reasonable
ness
Mr.. Sommer proceeded to cite in
stances in the argument made by the
other side. One OF these WAS the
statement that at no time within the
last FIVE years has there been any
new public service enterprise estab-
lished In the State because of the fear
on the part of capital that arbitrary
and unjust action shall be taken by
the utility board. This statement he
branded es Untrue and said that the
public records show It to be absolute
ly without foundation.
He also attacked the statement
that the commission, in the proceed
ing under review, had rejected the
cost Of repurchasing the land OF the
company and allowed but little more
than its assessed value per lot, say
ing:
Opposite to Fact.
sThis statement again runs directly
counter to the fact. It wholly sup
presses the fact that the assessed
value OF lands as it appears in the
record is the value OF the lands ir-
respective of by whom used and IN
what proportions; that certain items
of land are used by both Public Ser.
vice Gas Company and Public Service
Electric Company jointly; and that
these items were, as they must be-
1. he Ia
approxirnately to the gross revenues
OF the company" He then went on
to cite instances in the record to sur-
port this declaration.
Mr. Sommer also branded as mis-
statements the declarations OF the
"cost of manufacturing gas" IN GER
tain years. and that the commission
in its opinion stated that the corn-
pany should charge in Its operating
expenses six cents per thousand cubic
feet in order to provide
for future depreciation" The argu-
rnent Of the Public Service Companys
counsel in this case being that the
decision by this clause was tanta-
mount to a reduction Of sixteen cents
instead of ten. OF this, Mr.. Sommer
said:
''This paragraph is artfully framed
to create the impression that the
board ordered the company to set
aside six cents per thousand cubic
feet additional for depreciation, and
that the company is required here
after to set aside such sum. SO lessen
ing the earnings applicable to interest
and dividends.
No Such order.
ssNo such order was made by the
board; no such requirement was I'M
posed, nor in fact could II be except
after hearing, upon notice. upon the
specific question.
"The evidence of the operating ex-
penses OF the company was before
the board continued Mr.. Sommer.
1.-THE expenses included amounts
charged to repairs which might prop
erly have been charged to deprecia-
ton. The company made no Claim
for allowance for depreciation beyond
the amount 50 charged to repairs
''The board, however, to mako GER
tain that the rate should suffice not
only to meet the operating expenses,
interest and normal profit, but amply
provide for future depreciation as
well, added an allowance of SIX cents
per thousand cubic feet for that pur-
pose.
"The board did not impose an added
burden upon the company.
"On the contrary, 1t allowed to the
company In its calculations a sum
be, ond that cLtimed by the company
to cover future Depreciation
Continuing to quote from the argu-
ment of his opponent. Mr.. Sommer
drew the attention of the court to
this statement:
GAS this investigation has pro-
gressed 1t has become constantly
clearer, and the fact is recognized by
all thoughtful people. that the pub
lie interest would be much better
served by allowing these companies
to pursue the broad policy which they
have adopted and TO build UP their
credit in the money markets OF the
world, rather than to injure their
credit by an unnecessary interference
with heir revenue and at the same
time destroy the inducement which
alone makes ii possible for them to
continue their work.
This bit of rhetoric in which coun-
sci undertake to speak for all
thoughtful people might be permitted
to pass unnoticed were 1t not for the
fact that 1t Is tantamount TO q decla-
ration that the order OF the board nad
injuriously affected or would in
Juriously affect the credit Of the COM
pary.
There -. Of course. no testimony
20 this effect.
"That the statement is rhetorical
fr.~t<ru~<a a. 49, q ss~s....>. AZ