Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1919-09-10
respect to inadequacy and ineffi-
cheney of service.
In Good Condition

| SopCCl " lHducQudCy anu
cheney of service.
In Good Condition
1T is clear from the testimony of
the engineers that the property and
equipment of the respondent COM
pany was in good condition on Oc-
tober /, 1918, the track construc-
| ton being mostly Trail. The COM
pany had thirty-nine passenger and
! four service cars all in good condi-
| ton.
The complaint of the borough of
! Carlisle that the increase in rates
was in violation of the provisions of
the ordinance we will dismiss, as
the Commission decided in the case
of Williamsburg VS.. the Pittsburgh
| Railways Company, P. U. r., 1918,
| f. 131, that an ordinance granting
a franchise to a street railway COM
pany and prescribing the rate OF
| fare to be charged does not preclude
the Commission from inquiring into
the reasonableness of any rate and
from determining the rate of fare
n railway company is entitled to re-
ceive. This decision of the COM
mission was affirmed by the ST.
perior Court in an opinion filed by
Judge TreXler on July II, 1919, in
which he said:
iAC t@CIClSe OI Inp police
power of the State shall never be
abridged or so construed as to per-
init corporations to conduct their
business in such manner as to in
fringe the equal rights of individ-
uals or the general well-being of the
state. Where the rights of individ-
uals under a contract which would
otherwise be perfectly valid are in
conlilct with the general we'll being
OF the State the rights of the indi-
! Nldual must give way to the general
welfare. 1t, therefore, follows that
"hen, as in this case, the parties
enter into contract with a public
service corporation relating to rates
they are presumed to have done so
with the knowledge that the right
OF the State to exercise this police
power In the future is expressly re-
served and that where the common
veal and the interest of the public
demand that the provisions of the
contract thus entered into shall be
modified it can be done without any
violation of the provisions of the
constitution of the United States
with reference to the impairment of
the obligation of contracts (See
also opinion of the Superior Court
by Judge Williams in the matter of
Charles S. Foltz. appellant VS., pun
nc service Commission, filed July
II, 1919.
1t is clear from the evidence
that the respondent has complied
with the Public Service Act and the
rules of the Public Service Commits
sion IN the posting and publishing of
the new tariff.
The Sevcn-Ccnt Fare
rms leaves one question remain
ing. Was the increase in rates bv
respondent from five to seven cents
per zone unjust and unreasonable?
1t Is clear from the testimony taken
IN this case that the equipment of
the respondent company is modern,
or good quality and that the operat-
ing efi1clency of the system is up to
at least ninety per cent The cleo
trio current used by the respondent
company in the operation of its sys
tenn is furnished by the United Elcc-
trlc Company All of the capita1
STOCK of the United Electric Com
pany Is owned by the respondent
company, the Valley RAILWAYS Com
pany, with the exception of the
shares necessary to qualify directors.
The stock of the United Electric
company has not been treated in
this case by the respondent as an
"'SSI iiOI dS an item or property
used or useful in the transportation
business of respondent and the divi-
dends received by the respondent
company from the ownership of this
stock are not included in the income
of the respondent The respondent
company paid to the United Electric
company five cents per K. w. H. for
power. Respondent contends that
in determining the net revenue the
power should be charged for at
what it is reasonably worth. IT ia
clear from the record in this case
that five cents per K. W. H. is below
the cost of the power and is en-
tirely too low and that the power
should be charged at what is a
proper and reasonable rate. The
testimony submitted by the respond
ent shows the rate charged by vari-
Gus electric companies for power
from 1.3S cents to 2.24 cents per
X. w. n. The Commission consid-
ers that a rate of 1.5 cents per
X. w. II. would not be excessive.
The testimony clearly shows that
the operating expenses of the re-
spondent company have increased
rapidly. The expenses, including
taxes for the year 1914, were $751;
$50; for the year 1915, $172,654;
for the year 1916, S194,379; for the
year 1917, $213,42S; for the year