The Washington times., 1919-10-06
CONSUMERS
renew FIGHT
ON GAS FIGHT
Appeal Perfected in Suit to
Knock Out 95-Csnt Charge
To Private Users.
ny BILL PRICE.

Bv BILL PRICE.
The glaring injustice by which pri-
Vafe consumers Of gas in the District
are charged G5 cents per 1000 feet,
while the District and Federal gov
ernments pay only 20 cents, was again
attacked BY the hllng Of a brief in the
District Court Of Appeals today being
the completion Of the appeal OF citi-
zens from the recent decision Of the
Supreme Court OF the District.
The brief was filed by Roscoe r.
walter, attorney for the appellants,
william Hollis and sam Goodman. II
90 directed against the members Of the
Public Utilities Commission.
Nay rs. last. appellants, through M,
walter, 6led an the District supreme
Court, their bin Of complaint against
the Public Utility Commissioners and
the Washington Gas Light Company,
alleging that the defendants were
foreod % pay 90 cents for gas ron
March IS, 1918, TO March %, leAS' ana
since then e5 cents
Declare Ratne Illegal.
The defendants deIared that this
rate 81 Illegal and should be re-
strained, being in violation or the
rfnfuforv rate OF 75 cents fixed BY
Conrreag n Section Of the act Of
September T, 1915.
The appellants claim that the order
of March aB. 1918, Increasing the
rate above % cents clearly was IL
legal Discriminatory, unconstitu-
tional. null and void, especially IN I
view of the fact that the Public Util- |
tiles Commission did not increase the 1
rate % the Federal and District Gov |
crnmant8 which, under the same act 4
of Congrcea, are Btiil paying only 20 /
cents for gas consumed
The point is made that the differ 4
once IN rates charged private con-
EumeEs and the Government iG clearly 4
q Discrimination against the defend
ants. Feprlving them of their proper
~ FightC without due process Of law.
Say GoVerun,euf Uuvored.
Il is contehdsd that the evidence
ppre8ented at gas hearings before the
Public Utilities Commission subgtan- 4
ffnfed claims that ff the FederlI and
District governments had paid the
same price Tor gas as private con-
rumerB 90 would not have been neces@
rrFT % raise the rate above 60 ceutg,
which Wouid have been sufficient 20
have furnished revenues to give the
company q 6 per cent return on the
valuation of its properties.
The original complaint contended
EtronFlV that the orders Of the com
mission Increasing gas rates are il-
LEGAL because the proviGiong Of the act
creating the Public Utilities Commis-
sion DO aot authorize that commission
% increase rates 70 private consumers
and not make the same increase to the
Government The contention g that
ff the commission has power o max
increases at all that power extends
- the private consumer and. the Gov
ernmeut alike.
In response 70 the original complaint
in the District Supreme Court the Util-
ftfeg Commiggiou moved to dismiss the
blII because the plaintiffs had not set
forth sufficient facts and that they
were not parties to the proceedings
before the commission when the gas
hearings were being held.
Lest In Supreme C0urt.
The gas company, q defendant
aIGo, likewise asked for dismissal Of
the original bill on practically the
same grounds, another ground being
that the BIN Of complaint was not I
hled within 40 days after the order
Of the CommfGgion- /.
The Supreme Court dismissed the /
original and amended bills. The
plaintiffs theEsupou took appeal 20 l [
the Court Of Appeals. Although the {
supreme Court submitted no written
opinion Ga digmisging the bill Of the
pIalntins it is stated that the court
remarked that be did not believe the
Commission had the power
70 tx rates 70 the Federal and Dis
tFict governments.
The appellants contend that the
Commission does have this power and,
having failed 20 exercise 81, discrimi-
mated seriously against the private
consumer. z
The brief declares that the gas com v
Pany's counsel took the position in Z
the past that the Commission had the n
power TO Ok rates TO all alike. Later E
on this view was changed BY attor- o.
neys for the company. p
Appeal u OF ImpoFtanee. q
The appeal is OF Importance and p
interest 70 private consumers OF gas 81
IN the District for the reason that
the general public has felt that any b
law or order which puts upon ID dl
y molly the burden Of keeping the gas 50
company IN revenues, while the FTed- m
eral and the District governments do u
not share In that burden. Is mani m
-elLly Unfair ana should be corrected
~ congress. The Court Of Appeals (3
may sustain the action OF the Iover -
court for legal reasons. but the fs~f
still remains that there Is rrorr 49,
against the private con
sumer.
Inc Two governments are paviDp q
-oday Tor the gas they use ersctII, 10
What they paid two or three yearT he da
ore the war while the price TO the th
'ohslmer mas been hoisted so that to-
~ 9L ne burden Is placed upon the IN
.lliS- ,.-li gFiheiple everywhere Is II,
Considered bad, but Congress hng r,s ,,I,
ret seen ~ 70 correct a Elarinr in n
usuce, recognized by the TJtiiitiov
as being Of the rapkerf ~.
fo