Evening star., 1919-09-06

whose function it is to SETTLE such
questions when presented for decision.
have passed upon and finally DECIDED
this identical question: The supreme
judicial tribunal whose decision and
judgment in all cases must be hnal.
binding. recognized and followed by
all commissions and courts in the
United States, has considered and de-
cided this question. The identical
has been before that highest court,
and that court has, by its unanimous
opinion, considered. case which is
on all fours with the case under con-
der facts like these. a commission
must recognize the contract entered
into. 1t must allow the company a
sum equal to such purchase price in
determining the fair. value of the
property to the present stockholders.
Refers to Gas Case.
Il refer to the well known consoli-
dated Gas case. which is also referred
to by my distinguished associates,
and is reported as Wilcox VS.. Con-
soiidated Gas Company, -212 u. g.; 49,
this decision having been rendered BY
SAD court On the 18th OF January.
After quoting from this decision.
Mr.: Gardiner continues:
.Twenty-four years have elapsed
since this contract for purchase and
Gne,nae,, sale between the CAPITAL Traction
Georgetown Railroad Company bss
came effective. during all OF which
time. so far as j know and SO far Al
! believe the commission Knows.
mere has never been suggestion Of
impropriety or ilIegality about sthib
transaction: nor has there been any
criticism of the amount paid for thI
Washington and Georgetown Railroad
Company"
In concluding Mr. Gardiner SAID IN
part:
Now, we have a situation where
Congress. who gave the powAr to do
that which was done. thereafter, by
silence, approved and ratified as right
that which was done. ~
We have the Commissioners of the
District of Columbia giving written
authority to the company to do that
which was done. -. =:
we therefore have two regulatory
bodies-the only regulatory bodies lii
existence at that time-authpsixinss
the thing which is now questioned as
not properly done. ! a7I
Relied on Difference in Cases.
MY distinguished associates. = III
their very able discussion. ~6f-'-tfris
case. have. in their effort to 'disttf.
guish>between this case and the Cbf,.
solfdated Gas case, relied as the basis
OF their opinion upon there BEING 1
difference between this case and the
Consolidated Gas case in the acts Of
Congress permitting this purchase or
consolidation and the act of the lef.
isiature in authorizing the purchaSl
or consolidation Of the gas companies.
!, have read and reread. and repeatedl
! ly reread what they have said land
wherein they undertake to diiferer-
tiate between the two cases, but I am
Of the opinion that in their effort to
distinguish between the two upon this
point, they have conclusively proven
that there is no basis for a differences.
MY associates have undertaken to
dinerentiate between the two acts
in saying that one was q consoiida.
tion and the other a purchase. Call
1t what you may. the legal effect, is
the same. because in the gas company
case the Consolidated Gas COMPANY
was. incorporated after the passene
OF the act and issued it's stock in ex.
companies that 1t took over. while In
the case under consideration, the
railroad company was given by Con
gress specific authority to issue itA
| stock in an amount not to exceed the
purchase price of the Washington
and Georgetown line. care hot
whether you call it SALE. exchange,
trade swap or consolidate the
| manner in which it was done was IN
all respects identical and when you
put the legal searchlight upon both
transactions, you must call both. by
the same name"