Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1916-11-29


split hose to toe other trays. BY this
arrangement he used more water, but
saved the cost Of two faucets. At his
houke, the charge for water under the old
rate was us; under the new 1t would be
"a. He was charged for q horse, y,
though he watered his horse from Q well,
and also used we'll water for drinking
purposes In the house. He bad two set
tubs, hot water faucet in one, . cold
water faucet In the other. He was
charged for both faucets, but was I'D
vised that II he turned one of the faucets
20 that both would run into the same tub,
he would have to pay for only one.
William 0oggins, chairman OF the board
OF assessors, testified - to the appearance
OF Edward N. Graham, general manager
Of the Bar Rarbor 4 Union River Power
Co., before the board OF assessors. to ask
for . reduction OF the valuation. The
assessors replied that II he would show
them that the property had been over
valued, they would reduce it. MIR. Cog
gins testified that Mr.. Graham told the
assessors that II tie valuation was raised,
water rates would be raised.
This closed the testimony presented BY
the petitioners.
srATEMKNr BIT CON. SKELETON.
Commissioner Shelton at this point
stated that the commission would give
the public the benefit OF every reasonable
doubt In carrying the Investigation
through. This CASE, he said, presented
rathey unusual situations. While an in
ventory and valuation Of its property was
bsing made, the company made . new
schedule which made Q change. The
company contends that this was not an
increase Of rate, but an additional charge
for water openings not heretofore charged
for.
He stated further that while the water
company was itself making an inventory,
this would not b accepted BY the public
utilities commission - Anal valuation
until It had besn checked up BY the en-
ginesrs Of the public utilities commission.
The making Of such an inventory was .
long and laborious work, and while not
accepted BY the commission % nnal, Is
would facilitate the commission in making
it, own appraisal. and save expense TO the
State.
The commission, he said, could not
make rates until the valuation % COM
pleted. II the water company does mot
expedite the matter, and do the work
quickly enough, the commission will
press the matter.
Attorney simpson, In opening the case
for the defense, said the company did not
expect TO succeed in charging moro than
the watsr-takers ought 10 pay. It WAS
true that up to the present year the system
OF charging and inspecting had bean lax.
Many wsteF-taksrs had added convenisncss
and water opsnings for which they were
not paying.
But then the public utilities commission
was crested, discrimination was impos-
sibls, and the result was the company had
to die its schedule Of rates, and advise Gus
toners that they would have to pay for
additions. The old schedule Of rstss was
filed, and the company vas advised by
the public utilities commission that the
rates were not specific enough. There
was considerable correspondence between
the commission and the company, which
was latsr introduced in the case, and the
new schedule was made, making specific
charGsa for various additions and wster
openings.
Mr.. Corning, treasurer OF the company,
was the only witness. put ON By the de-
Tense. ae testified in substance a. out
lined BY Mr.. Simpson In his opening,
bringing out the fact that the new sched-
ule OF rates was prepared before the in
crease In valuation was ma de by the a.
sessorp OF Ellsworth. In preparing this
schedule to meet the requirements OF the
public utilities commission, rates Of some
twenty different water companies we're
tsbulated from schedules on die with the
commision, and used - . guide. The
company had thorough inspection made
Of all water opsnings, and made charges
from the nee schedule Of rates. Il was
discovered that many water opsnines and
appliances had mot besn paid for under
the old rates. II was not the intention Of
49, f.HJ ~ AAso&v1Do AbS1DS ~ u110S
though II bad the sflsct in many casss Of
increasing the charge 70 customer.
On cross-sxAminstion, Mr.. Corning
testified that ths company had NO separate
valuation On ~ vatsr plant; that iii but
ok sharss OF ths stock Of thu Bar Harbor
4 Union Rivss-powsr CO. were ownsd 81
the Bangor Railway q Electric o.; and
that ths water plant Of the company had,
% mr. - - knew, earned sufHcient TO my
ne running sxpsnsss svs.y year.
czAqa ~ nHAnlu0.
This closed ~ hearing. Commissioper
skeltou aid that this Was 8 matter n
which IT, pablo was greatly intsre1tsd.
and - thoeght ths pubite haA HIGHT q
Know what steps wouId b taksn. a
s.id that In Axtng propsr rats 10 s.
cnargsd for wafer, the watsr plant Of tks
company wonld b taken - unit, d.
vorcsd from IL powsv conpany, and ~
actual vaine ascsrtained. Tbe Watss
ssksn Would - required 70 pay cnly