Newark evening star and Newark advertiser., 1915-03-03

tuition against any action of the COM
mission impairing the value of sucn
property, how is it possible for the
State or the commission to sustain
any order for improved service which
entails additional expense on the
company, or reducing rates which
would lessen the income of the COM
pany?
Does not the following language
of the United States Supreme Court
in Consolidated Gas case answer
question No. 8, (the preceding ques-
tom against the contention of the
company?
"~ It's (franchise) past value
was founded upon the opportunity
of obtaining these enormous and ex-
cessive returns upon the property of
the company, without legislative in
reference with the price for the sup
ply OF gas, but that immunity for the
future was, of course, uncertain, and
the moment 1t ceased and the legis-
lature reduced the earnings to q
reasonable sum the great value of
the franchises will be at once and
unfavorably affected"
WAS not the claim of the company
in the Consolidated Gas case for
500, 100000 franchise value identical as
to the principle involved and the
character OF the evidence adduced
with the claim of the gas company
in this case for an additional allow
ance for franchise value?
How can you arrive at the value
of a plant without any business at
tached?
How do you measure the value of
a franchise as distinguished from the
value of the business of the COM
pany?
rs there any going concern value
in a plant costing 100000 and earn.
Ing net So 900 a year? If yes, how do
you measure it? Is there any fran
chise value in such a plant, and, IL 80,
now do you measure 1t?
"If the cost of advertising, cam
vassing for business, furnishing free
trials for appliances, etc, and the
cost incident to getting the plant into
working shape after its completion
are paid for out of the gross receipts,
and enough receipts are left after
paying these and other expenses of
operation to furnish a fair return
upon the company's property, upon
what legai or equitable principle can
these expenses be charged to capital
account and the public which has
once paid the bill be compelled to
ray interest on this account forever?"
No RELIEF In Sight.
Some of the points made were as
follows:
"The Supreme Court denies the
right of tho cities to review the order
of the commission in this case by
certiorari. If it cannot review the
crdar by certiorari. what other pro-
ceeding is open to them by which
this order can be reviewed at their
instance? If no remedy Is available
to the cities by Which this order Is
renewable, how can the cities or the
consumer ever secure a review of
any order of the Public Utility Com
mission fixing a gas rate, however
unreasonable or eXorbitant they may
allege it to be?
1.-THE State has the right to Ak rea-
sonable rates.
''If the claim of the gas company
that value of property is shown by
net earnings capitalized Is sound no
gas rate can ever be reduced by the
commission.
There is no authority for the
claim that franchise value, shown
by net earnings capitalized, is pro-
tected by the constitution"
Judge Ernest j. Heppenheimer, OF
Jersey City, today voluntarily with
drew from the Court of Errors and
Appeals in the reargument of the
gas rate when 1t was commenced
yesterday afternoon.
The Significance in the retirement
of Judge Heppenheimer and the ILL
ness of Judge Bogert is that both
jurists voted for the reversal of the
90-cent gas rate without attempting
to prejudice the action OF the court
on the reargument proceedings it was
openly asserted here that there would
be two less votes for reversal 1t will
be remembered that ON December 8,
1914, six members of the court, out of
sixteen, succeeded in reversing the
90-cent gas rate decision which the
Supreme Court sustained. The six
members of the court who reversed
the 90-cent gas rate were: Chief JUS
tice Gummere. Justices Parker and
Bergen and Judges Vredenburgh,
Heppenheimer and Bogert.
-Four to Af1rm.
Arrayed against these six were four
votes to affirm the decision of the
Supreme Court. The four affirma-
tive votes were cast by Chancellor
Walker, Justices Trenchard and Ka-
lisch and Judge Terhune. Justices
Swayze, Minturn and Garrison sat in
the case in the Supreme Court and
decision in the Court of Errors and
Appeals. Judge White did not sit
with the court in the original argu-
ment and therefore did not vote on
the famous to decision
Aq tho nQah NOM nda TtsI ern