Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1917-08-15
Utmost Latitude Allowed.

utmost latitude was allowed the plaintiff
in fhe introduction of it's testimony,
that no technical objections of any
sort were made by the counsel for the
thrown wide open to all of the witness
IS Of the plaintiff to enlighten the com
mission as far as possible, and to en-
able it to perform its duties, under the
law. fairly and impartially.
The commission also AYERS that the
eo-called bill of complaint partakes
more of the nature of a bill of excep-
fions to the commissions findings than
the ordinary bill of complaint in an
equity proceeding: that the method of
allegation adopted by the plaintiff in
wolves SO many questions of law and so
many conclusions of the pieader that
tho commission has found il almost i'm
possible to answer the bill in the same
manner and form as are employed in
answering an ordinary bill in equity.
and that under the conditions the COM
mission should not be taken to admit
any allegation or conclusions which are
not specifically denied.
Specifically answering the rule to show
cause, the commission says that il was not
contemplated in any provision of the pub
He utilities law that a court of equity
might issue preliminary restraining or
Ger or injunction to suspend pendente lite
. valuation made by the commission. but
that the same should be suspended or en-
5oined only after full hearing by the
court upon the merits of the case: that
the plaintiff has not in and by its bill set
forth such a state of facts as would show
o. tend TO show that IL would be irrevocably
injured il a temporary restraining order
was not granted and does not claim by
its bill that any such result would happen
should such order OF valuation be not sus-
pended The commission further AYERS
that IL has denied the material allega-
tons of the bill and that. having done SO,
the court should not grant an order stay
ing the order of the commission COM
planned of in the bill
In answer to the company's bill of
complaint against the rates based on
sion replies in detail, taking up and
answering specifically the various al
legations of the company.
Says Rates Should Be Reduced.
Replying generalq. the commission
states that from its consideration of
the fair value Of the property of the
company and its study and ANALYSIS of
the rates. tolls and charges being made
by the company it appeared to it that
some of the rates. tolls and charges
were excessive, and in fairness and iIs-
tfce TO the public should be reduced
Denial is made that the commission
liked an arbitrary rate of return. On
the contrary. il is alleged. it studied, as
II was required TO do. what rate of re-
turn would ensue IL certain rates and
schedules were reduced
concerning the contractural rela-
IONS pet"een the company and the
washington Railway and Electric
Company, the commission states that
this is open to the most serious o,es-
ton 1t AYERS that the contract under
winch the railway company would have
the preferential right to receive from
the power concern as much electrical
energy as il might requfre-payrnent
to be made at the actual cost of pro
ouction. inclusive Of interest at the rate
OF per cent year on the property of
the plaintiff employed in such produce
tion-never was lived up to: that as a
result of notifications in the contra ct
the plaintin not only received no prof +
on the electrical energy taken nv me
railway company and no interest on
its investment, but that il paid mora
than It's just proportion of the expenses
OF generating the power.
Close Scrutiny Required.
"The commission AYERS" continues IFS
answer. that the relation of tbeee
companies to each other. the one own
ing all the capital stock of the other
with Identical boards of directors and
practically Identical officers and renre
senting an identity of interest OF ttseI,
compeis the most careful scrutiny al
their so-cslled CONSTITUTIONAL obliea tfons
IN order that their contractural power
may not be used as an Instrument tr
Cypress the public and prevent privatf
consumers from securing the produc,
of the plaintiff at the reasonable ratf
TO which they are entitled under the
law" '
In this connection the commission
= calls the attention OF the. court TO the
fact that on May 8, 1917. enc day afte,
the commission had entered it's order
of valuation. and with knowledge or
the part of the plaintiff of the same. m,
while the question of rates was pend.
ing before the commission, the plain,
s tin. without the knowledge of the com
mission. through Identical boards O
s directors meeting at the same time ane
1lAces entered into another and further