Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1919-09-10

| physical construction of the old
| plant to the scrap heap. Much must
| be left to the sound discretion of the
present body, the tribunal appointed
by law and informed by experience,
in the discharge of these delicate
and complex duties
| Applying the principles thus laid
down to this case, it will be obserV-
ed that the two concluding items
in the estimates of reproduction
costs submitted on behalf of the res
pondent provoked considerable dis
| cussfon at the argument and require
careful consideration at our hands.
These items are listed under the
heading: "Other elements of value"
! The first consisted of an item of
$50, 100000 for additional develop
ment expenses. The testimony dis
closes that this amount is claimed
by the respondent as the aggregate
! of expenditures made in the past for
property which does not appear in
the inventory taken as of October
1st, 1918, principally a trestle at
Lemoyne and a line to Carlisle. both
of which were subsequently aband-
oned and for work done in shift
ing lines under the requirements of
municipal ordinances. We do not
consider there is sufficient evidence
in this case to justify us in allow
ing these items to be considered in
the reproduction cost of the prop
erty.
There is another item which the
respondent claimed of 100000. 90
equity in the Susquehanna River
Crossing. This crossing is what is
known as the Peoples Bridge, and
is used by the respondent company
to carry it's tracks across the Sus-
Is.yN ntN0V A l..
ago the respondent company made
a lease with the owners of the Peo-
Piles Bridge for nine hundred and
ninety-nine years. the rent to be
one cent per passenger carried over
the bridge by the respondent COM
pany, until such time as the rents
would aggregate 100000 per year,
and after that time to pay a fixed
rent of 100000 a year. We do not
consider that the sum OF 800, 100000
should he allowed as the value of
this equity, but we are of the opin-
ion that the right to cross the bridge
in question under the circumstances
is an asset, which will be given con-
sideration in ascertaining the pre-
sent value of respondents property.
As To Depreciation
with respect to accrued de-
! probation on the respondents prop
/ erty" the evidence shows that re-
| spondent has from time to time
made considerable expenditures for
renewals and requirements in order
| to render adequate service, and that
the property is in a high state of
| operating efficiency. The theory of
the respondent seems to be that al
though admitting that it's railway
system is not new. it is rendereing as
good service to the public as if it
were new and that the owners are
! entitled to insist, in making Il valNl-
alton of their property for the Dur-
| poses of rate making, that nothing
| should be deducted for accrued de-
probation. This contention we can
not allow. In our opinioo actual
|! physical depreciation has neces-
50 riiy taken place in some of The
units of respondents property,
which depreciation began the in
slant the units were installed and
will end only with their replace
ment. In reaching conclusion
with reference to present value OF
| respondents property this fact
along with all other relevant facts
has been taken into consideration
The Commission also has taken in
to consideration the present good
condition of the property and its
operating efficiency as having a
material bearing on the question OF
its concern value. Under the evil
dence in the case and under the
decision in tn case Of Ben Avon
| Borough, ct al. VS.. Ohio Valley
Water Company (Supra-), 1t is our
! duty to give consideration to the
respondent for its going concern
value.
"In fixing a valuation of the
property in this case, we have been
mindful of the language used by
the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in
the matter of Appleton Water
Works Company VS.. the Commits
sion, 154 Wisconsin 121, which case
Supreme Court in the Ohio Valley
Water Company case. mot to obtain
this value by adding up a number
of separate items but by taking a
comprehensive view of each and al
the elements of property tangible
and intangible including property
rights and consider them all not as
separate thing but as inseparable
parts of the harmonious entity and
exercising the Judgment as to the
value of that entity" The re.
spondent's engineers. basing theil
calculations upon average price;
| pTeVdlllnS ITOIH 1919 TO 1910 IeSJl
fed that a proper allowance to bt
made by the Commission for tht
annual depreciation upon respond
ent's property would be $36,976.0 90
In view of the evidence in the cas-,
relative to past expenditures by re
spondent for renewals and replace
ments, and having in mind ou
conclusions in reference to the mat
ters of actual depreciation, we ar'
of the opinion that under all th'
circumstances in this case we shoulc
adopt this uncontroverted conclu
sion OF respondents engineers.
The Estimates
Respondents estimate of tht
amount which will be required Il
meet its operating expenses anC
taxes for the year 1919 is set ou
on respondents exhibit No. 5. Re
casting these figures in accordance
with the testimony relative to the
inclusion of expenditures for re-
newals and requirements to the
amount of s34,221. 90, in the item
of 100000 for maintenance o.
way and structures and the item OF
S45,070 for maintenance of equip.
ment, the claim of respondent fol
actual operating expenses may be
stated as follows:
Maintenance, operating
expenses ........... S79,S49 0C
Transportation, operating
expenses ............ 203,642 OF
Taxes 27080.0C
$310,571. .0C
"The accountant for ro.ro-5