Evening journal., 1918-06-15

i did not know, not having gone over
# with him.
J. Mr.. Isaac was asked what part OF tn
i-hsum mentioned was for taxes and h.
= said he did not know and like an
g swer was given when he was asket
;. what portion went to oil waste an'
d coal
y The questioning continued:
Q. Do you consider that the lumI
/ sum OF ss50,s00 ror operating ex-
= penses Is sufficiently in detail to show
? the Board of Public Utility Commits
sioners that the trolley system is eco
nOmically and properly operated
A. ] have no way of knowing that
} o. Mr.. Isaac, as a business man, il
: you were charged with an account, a
large sum, wouldn't you consider that
? you ought TO know what the different
items were tlfat entered into that large
sum whicn was charged TO you?
2 A. ! certainly would.
0. Then would you say that the
lump sum OF Ss50,s00 was sufficiently
in detail to show the Board of Public
Utilities that the trolley system is eco
nomically and properly operated?
A. | would say that one answer alone
is not.
o. An item Of s2i2,7O0 also allowed
in the experts report for additional
operating expenses at % per cent. based
on the increase of labor and material
costs over 1917. What part Of this sum
is for additional increases of labor nee
! essary for the operation Of the troll
| ley system?
A. ! can't give you that off-hand.
Q. There is an additional item OF
O. What part Of this sum comprises
material necessary for the proper oper-
alton OF the trolley system?
A. ] don't know.
0. There is an additional item shown
in two ways as si2s.OOO and as $780,
900, representing additional wage in
crease to employees at the rate Of si6,-
900 per year for each one cent ad-
vance. Does this increase include only
wages Of the men operating the trolley
system?
A. That is what it IS supposed to in
clude-
0. l know, but what does it include?
A. / did not make the report.
Q. Then yOu do not know?
A. Not further than what the re-
port tells us.
Q. You simply took for granted what |
this engineer told you by the report?
A. That is what we went by
Q. There is an item of s395,0OO under 4
the heading of interest and rentals
railway only. What portion of this
is rentals and what portion OF it is in
terest?
A. ! don't know that.
~. T. afa.N
amount Of rental the traction company
pays for tine leases of the Wilmington
City Railway Company, Front and
Union Railway. Peoples Railway and
other subsidiaries. and MFR. Isaac re-
piled that he didn't know.
Mr. Robertson asked Mr. Isaac the
have answered largely in the negative
10 these questions that | have put TO
you Most OF my questions have been
answered by II don't know" Now. do
you consider that lump sum OF $685.
200 for interest and rentals is sufficient
y in detail to show the Utility Com
nisslOners whether the annual rentals
1aid by the Wilmington & Philadelphia I
fraction Co. are reasonable and prOper2 ,
A. Taken into connection with the ,
1ther report, ! do think so.
o. Mr.. Isaac, you have answered u
10 not know" to all these questions ,
right on the subject and come !
lrOund and say that you think it is !
sufficient in detail TO know the lump ,
ium OF the expenses. Do you still
hink that is correct?
A. Hardly So :
Q. Do you consider the statement Of :
arnings OF the Wilmington and Phila- .
elphia Traction Company within the
tate OF Delaware certified by Lybrand. :
loss Bros. and Montgomery TO show
n sufficient detail the financial condi-
ion Of the traction company?
A. / think so.
O. You think it is sufficiently in de- {
all? 0
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Now, Mr.. Isaac. if you, as busi-
ess man. had a statement Of this kind
ubmitted TO you where your own per-
onal effects were concerned, where ?
our own money was involved would u
on consider that that statement was Q
uflcient? u
A. That would depend on the cir ri
umstances. n
Q. Well, the circumstances being b
hat your own financial effects were II
il
A. l would think that If made by
ybrand, Ross Bros. and Montgomery it al
fas correct di
Q. We are not doubling their ability W
5 accountants but would you consider
safe TO take that statement alone? r.
A. l don't think that is a fair ques-
on.
Objection was raised by City Solicitor
ayard. but il was overruled.
Commissioner Mock was questioned
bout meetings Of the Utilities Commls-
on, and whether he had received no.
ces Of them.
Mr.. Bayard objected to Councilman
obertson asking Commissioner Mock
many questions in regard TO whether
, received notice Of these meetings
Id claimed 1t was taking up too much
me. President Lyon said that IL was
'rfectly in order and that Mr.. Robert
N might have motive in asking these
lestiOns.
Mr.. Robertson: How long before the
eeting OF June 3. did you receive no J
,e?
Mr.. Mock: There was one meeting !
at received notice on short time hut
cannot positively say whether this
as the meeting or not. I
Mr.. Robertson: How about the meet L
g of June )?
Mr.. Mock: That was the last meet l
= | got word Of the meeting. as near J
| can recall. about II or ii.3O. some e
lere around there, and the meeting v
IS called for 1890.