Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1917-01-30
ATTACKS Findings
+ ON PROPERTY VALUE
Attorney for Electric Power
Company Wants Report of
Andrew Sangster Rejected.
ALLEGES He MADE ERRORS

! charging AnureW SaHSSteT, CHlel az
countant of the public utilities commits
sion. with not having been fair ant
open minded in his report on the his
| torical value OF the property of thu
Potomac Electric Power Company, S
| r. Bowen, attorney and secretary Of
the company, urged the commission to-
day to exclude the report in its en-.
! tirety.
| A motion to this effect was made
| early during the valuation hearings
! when Mr.. Sangster was on the stand
but was overruled. Today Mr.. Bower
contended that the report and testi-
mony of Mr.. Sangster should not b.
considered, because he made errors thai
showed his conception of the task was
wrong.
Mr.. Bowen was unsparing in hi:
criticism of the commissions expert &C
countant. He said Mr.. Sangster was no
willing to accept conditions as he fount
figures on the company's books he drew
on his imagination to back up his
theories.
Alleges Numerous Examinations.
The power company attorney referred
to numerous examinations from capita
which, he said, had been made by Mr.
Sangster and quoted from the latter's
testimony to show that he had given nc
adequate explanation as to why the
eliminations were made. Mr. Sangster
he said, seized on every chance to elinli-
nate something, but where there was in
formation to be had concerning doubt
full items he had ignored it
In criticising the witness Mr.. Bowen
made it clear that his remarks in no
way reflected on the commission. On
the contrary. he stated, Mr.. Sangster
had not been fair to the commission In
following the methods upon which his
report was built.
Mr.. Bowen's statements consumed
all of the morning session. Following
Attorney Charles A. Douglas, who yes
terday discussed the legal questions
involved in the case, Mr.. Bowen con-
fined his remarks to the evidence bear
ing on the historical cost of the COM
pany's construction and equipment. AT
the outset he called on the commission
to dismiss prima facie evidence of
value, as shown in the tentative ratings
of it's experts, and base it's conclu-
sions on the evidence submitted during
the hearings.
He contendod that there could be nc
value in the report of either MI. Sang
ster or Charles l. Pillsbury, engineer
their reports were supported by the
testimony.
Cites Duty Under the Law.
In this connection Mr.. Bowen remind
ed members Of the commission that
whatever opinions they may have
formed as to the value OF the COM
panys property they are required by
law not to go outside the record Of the
valuation proceedings in reaching a
final determination. He quoted from q
Supreme Court decision in support OF
this contention.
Mr.. Bowen also discussed the rela-
tionship between the Potomac Electric
Power CompAny and the Washington
Railway and Electric Company, declar.
ing that it would be impossible in es-
tablishing a valuation to do justice tc
either without considering this rela.
tionship.
Defends Company Contention.
In closing his argument yesterday
afternoon. Attorney Douglas defended
the action of the company in claiming
a value for franchises, an allowance
among other intangibles claimed by the
company that are not recognized in the
reports of the commissions experts
He argued that the tax of per cent
on the gross earnings of the company
is proof of the existence OF franchises
and is itself a franchise tax, inasmuch
as there would have been no gross