Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1917-02-01
SHARP TILT marks
|LASTPEPCO HEARING
Commissioner Newman and
Attorney John S. Barbour
in Clash
EARLY FINDING PROMISED

Newman and Attorney John s. Barbour
and severe criticism by the latter of
Dr. Edward W. Bemis. director Of valu-
atoms. whose testimony he declared to
have been Contradictory" featured
the closing this afternoon of the long
valuation hearings. begun last June, in
the case of the Potomac Electric Power
Company.
The company's claim Of $650.o for
conceiver's compensation. which Con-
rad H. Syme, general counsel for the
commission. attempted to stamp az an
un5ustifiable allowance during tho
cross-examination Of witnesses, brought
on the tilt between the Commissioner
Tending this item Mr.. Barbour was
asked several questions by Commits
sioner Newman. who finally appeared
to grow impatient and said: ut 10
with dimculty that I can remember
that l am a gentleman and continue
to listen to this line Of argument"
Attorney Makes Reply.
To this Attorney Barbour replied
that he was frank in saying that he
equally was under restraint and that
he had constantly been interrupted by
the Commissioner with questions not
altogether pertinent.
IF l am infringing upon the patience
Of the commission am willing to end
my argument at this point" said Mr..
Barbour.
Commissioner Newman then replied
that the best way to arrive at a quick
conclusion would be for him to make
no further Interruptions.
ment at 1890. and Chairman Kutz of the
commission stated that its findings
would be announced at the earliest prac-
teal date. Conrad H. Syme. who has
directed the proceedings for the COM
mission. did not present an argument.
There is a difference of about S13,-
100000 between the commissions ten
tative rating and the amount claimed
by the company. which Is approx
mately $23.000,000. and unless the COM
nal figures 1t Is afssured that the case
will go to the courts for fnal determi-
nation.
Valuation Held Not Excessive.
In summing up. Attorney Barbour
by the company was not excessive and,
in fact, scarcely did Justice to the cor
poration. He said that the general
propositions submitted by the company
are supported by an unbroken line of
federal decisions, as far as he has been
able to ascertain. He appealed to the
commission to consider the rights Of
investors as well az of the government
and the public in arriving at its final
conclusion.
Attorney Barbour's Argument.
That the testimony Of Dr. Edward W.
Bemis. who directed tho valuation work
for the commission. was contradictory
throughout and should be disregarded
was the charge made by Attorney Bar
bour in beginning his argument today.
had testified more in particular cases
as to results he desired to accomplish
than as to general principles that
should be followed in valuation work
IF I were a member of the commits
sfon," Mr.. Barbour declared. II would
disregard all his testimony"
Beginning with the subject Of ma
terials and supplies, Mr.. Barbour dis
cussed the differences in the commits
sion's and the company's estimates for
also went exhaustively into the COM
pany's claims for intangible values, ag-
gregating about $6.000.000, for which
practically nothing is allowed in the
commissions tentative rating.
For working capital the commits.
sion's engineer. Mr.. Pillsbury. allowed
s135, 900, as against $S7s, 39e.71 allowed
by the company's engineer. Mr.. AL
inert. Attorney Barbour pointed out
that Mr.. Pillsbury had arrived at his
annual operating expenses Of the COM
pany plus taxes. to which was added
an arbitrary amount for extensions. Mr..
Almert reported as necessary for this
work the sum Of $37S, 1851. which he
based on the operating expenses Of
the company for the twelve periods
ending June 80. 1915. which amounted
to $97S.520.9o.
Pillsbury Allowance Inadequate.
According to Mr.. Barbour. the Pills
bury allowance would be inadequate
whereas the Almert allowance Is rea-
sonable and less than DR.. Bemis testi-
fed should be allowed in the so-called
Baltimore case, and in a number Of
other cases, he having testified in the
Baltimore case that four and one-half
months operating expense was reason
able.
Mr.. Barbour had considerable to say
about the Pillsbury estimates for en-
cheering and superintendent and law
expenditures during construction and
miscellaneous construction expenses, for
which he allowed a total of ss21.65S.
Mr.. Almert covered theSe Two Items
and also others. including preliminary
operation and reorganization expenses,
legal and organization expenses and
under the total Of $685.
542 The two sets of figures were given
for purposes of comparison. as follows:
Two Estimates Compared.
Pillsbury Almert
estimate. estimate.
Preliminary operation. $50 %
Reorganization expense .....-..... 25,0OO0O
Engineering and super
intendence $4SS.Oo3.oo lSo.VOooo
Legal and organiza-
ton expense ....-....- 2o2,o4zO
Law expenditures dur
ing construction and
miscellaneous con-
struction expense. 4s3. 90 '$lSo.ooo.oo
Totals . 1921 ,65S 90 $685.. $40 90
"This statement alone" asserts the
brief filed by the company. should &C
omit Mr.. Almert of the charge OF max
ing exorbitant or unreasonable allow
ances for overheads. if such a suspicion
has ever rested in the mind of any
member of this commission. and. in
stead of cutting down Mr.. Almert's al
lowance under this head. it is respect
fully submitted that Mr.. Pillsbury's al
lowance of $921,65S should be substi-