The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1918-01-11

AHho the CITY OF Scottte mas IN
0sased wages OF light department
employees from IL to IL per cent.
ntes to consumers have not had
- Be Increased a. q result.
This was the testimony given by
Councilman Oliver T. Erickson be-
fore the state public service COM
mission In the Chamber Of Com
mercs assembly room Friday. to
add weight to the cfty's contention
that the Seattle Lighting company
II not justified In it's attempt 20
charge consumers csc for monthly
Iservice and a rate increase of Is
cents per 1000 cubic feet.
But the city department has
5ugxied It's books. hasn't it," asked
Hance Cleland. attorney for the
commissioner.
Erickson said he resented such
an insinuation and declared Supt.
Ross Of tho light department was
. high type Of public servant.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Meier. for the city. jumped to his
feet
me10 OA1t9 rim
The attorney for the public SER
vice commission II appearing more
a. an attorney for the gas COM
pany than a representative Of the
people," ne said. Il hardly deem
II the proper attitude commensur-
ate with the representative of a
public service commission.
AT this hearing the attorney for
the commission has even gone to
the extent of rfdicuiinK the expert
witness that the city brought here
to protect the peoples interests"
Meier referred to the tactics used
Thursday by cieIand when he at
tackled the standing and ability Of
DR.. Edward w. Bemis. who gave
expert testimony for the city.
Henry I. Lee. the gas company's
expert witness, was recalled to the
stand Friday to discuss parts Of
Berr.is' testimony.
He declared that the item OF 1850.
s33 for paving. included in the 1914
physical valuation Of gas company
property. which Bemis testified
should never have been allowed for
rate making purposes. was "reauir-
ed by the state law in computing
the reproduction value Of the plant"
'In other words" he said. I'VE are
required to show what 1t would cost
to reproduce the plant. an well as
the original cost Gas mains could
not be laid now, Of course. without
the cost Of paving after tearing UP
the streets. SO this paving charge
had to be considered"
J. 3. Simpson. engineer for the
commission, also took the stand Fri.
day to tell how he commission had
checked up on gas company figures.
The figures and contentious OF the
city's technical expert. DIR. Edward
w. Bemis. filed with the public serv-
Ice commissioners, stood practically
undisputed Thursday afternoon. nj.
tho they differed widely from those
submitted by the gas company ex-
perts.
The gas company experts declared
that the Seattle Lighting company In
to-day entitled TO earn a profit on a
10000 900 rate base" which IL n
physical valuation plus other ele-
ments. such as increased operating
cost.
OF this 10000 900. the principal
item is the valuation Of gas com
pany property placed by the public
service commission In 1914, which
was 3s.2s5.e
But DIR. Bemis declares this valu-
. alton In unfair to the people Of Sc
attic and not just basis for fixing
rates.
He says that included In It In an
item Of 100000 for paving for
which the company never paid. does
not own and never deserved" An
other item he contends In unjust
was n charge Of si.543,0s develop
ment cost" which represents prof
its never made. but to which the
company argues II Is entitled az a
fair return on Investment.
Three Million Difference
80. instead of holding that the