The Washington times., 1917-01-30
SANGSTER REPORT
ATTACKED BY EPCO
Lawyer for Company Declares
Commissions Value Should
Not Be Considered.
MOTION IS oVERRULED
Declares Expert for Utilities
Board Drew on Imagination
in Assaying Properties.

.~eclarinE the report of Andrew
Sangster, chief accountant OF the val
uation bureau, should not be consid-
cred because of omissions, S. r.
Bowen, counsel for and secretary OF
the Potomac Electric Power Company
today presented to the Public Utilities
Commission his argument in relation
to the valuation of the company's
properties.
A motion to this effect made while
Mr.. Sangster was testifying was over
ruled by the commission and an eX-
ception noted.
Mr.. Bowen said that Mr.. Sangster,
failing to obtain all the information
necessary to a complete report, had
drawn on his imagination" and had
not been flair and open-minded" in his
methods.
No Reflection on Commission.
In criticising the witness, Mr..
Bowen said he wanted 1t to be under
stood that his criticism in no way re-
Elected upon the commission, as Mr..
Sangster had stated that he had fol
lowed his own methods and was re-
sponsible for the results.
When the witness was asked how
he would arrive at statement OF
the historical cost of a Htility's prop
critics, his answer was, Mr.. Bowen
said, that ascertainment would be
made from the books of the company
showing the various stages the prop
erty had passed. This, Mr.. Bowen de-
clared, the accountant was unable |
TO do. |
Impossible to Do Justice.
Referring the relationship be-
tween the Potomac Electric Power
Company and the Washington Rail
way and Electric Company, Mr.. Bowen |
declared that it would be impossible |
. to do justice or equity to either with |
cut understanding and giving consid- |
GRAFTON to such relationship.
The following reference to this is |
made IN the 6O0-page brief filed by
the company;
We ADMIT that the stock OF
the Potomac Power Company has
not since 1899 been held by the
public except hl the sense OF
its being held by the stockhold-
ers of the Washington Railway
and Electric Company and in
such manner that the stock OF
the Potomac Electric Power
Company is widely and indirect
~ held by the public.
Not Marked Distinction.
This of itself Is not such a
marked distinction from the Con-
soldiated Gas Case, when it is
borne in mind that 1t was known
to Congress that all the stock Of
the lighting companies would be
held In a common ownership and
single control with that of the
street railways intheact aforesaid,
and the whole financial struct-
ure VS. based upon the fact that
the stockholders OF the Wash
ington Railway am Electric Com
pany would become substantial
ly and or all real purposes the
stockholders in the lighting COM
pany as previously mentioned
Would Impress Commission.
In beginning his argument. Mr.
Bowen said he wanted to impress
upon the commission the fact that it
is compelled to find its valuations
upon the record of the hearings. and
not upon the reports of its account
ants and engineers.
In accepting the reports of it's own
experts, the commission. he said. was
acting in an administrative capacity.
but that in the final adoption of val
ues, he said, il should depend solely
upon the evidence. giving as much
consideration to the testimony Of
others as OF its own witnesses
The prims facie ascertainment. he
said, shou.- be cast aside.
Peoples Representative.
The general counsel Of the commits
sion, he saiu. was the peoples repre-
sentative. and the commission SHOULD
act solely as arbiters
Referring to the statement of Mr.
Sangster that the company had not
co-operated with the commission in
making the valuations. Mr.. Bowen
said that this might be true in tn"
sense the accountant construed il
but that he had not asked for sin
gle book or record which was not i.
mediately forthcoming.
Discusses Franchises.
Franchises and easements and the
values that should he given them was
the subject of Attorney Douglas argu-
ment yesterday afternoon.
Mr.. Douglas recited a number Of court
decisions, notably that OF the ConsoIi
dated Gas Company OF New York To
show that the item Of s.. 900 900 for ease .
ments included in the report of Harold
Almert. expert for the company but no.
allowed by Charles l.. Pillsbury. chief
engineer Of the valuation bureau. shoulr
be considered by the commission
The following reference to easement: 4
is made in the brief filed by the com
pany:
Failure to include property in east
ments amounts to confiscation in that J
fair rate 10 that extent is denied.
Has Right 10 Return.
"A utility has a right to a reason :
able return upon the fair value oi =
its property, and the Constitution o &
the United States protects such q
utility from any impairment of this =
rirhf- and The rafa ~ ratn,r,, ,,ril a