Evening star., 1920-03-02

the bearing being used for street rail-
way purposes, 80 far as it was being
used for any purpose whatever"
,,,.f Ihe s claim Of ssel.174.42 for unamor.
also properly disallowed, the court
nnds as was also a claim Of $3.50, 200
Tor services to Crosby and Leib. for.
mer directors, in obtaining loans and
securing contract for power with
tne old lexington road. These serv-
ices were not extraordinary, the court
mas. and were within the scope Of
their duties as directors.
Another claim disallowed was $3.50
ooO Tor compensation to conceiyers'
IN reference to this claim the court
Hypothetical Cost.
1t is purely hypothetical cost.
based upon the hypothetical recon-
struction Of the property, and is a.
serted upon the theory that some
such amount might be required to
pc paid TO some promoters or con-
celvers as compensation for the sue-
sestion that plant similar to that
OF the power company's should be
constructed In Washington under the
assumption that the existing miami
was non-existent either on the lar
1916. " '"' i'' OF july
1t appears from the evidence that
Ine power company is not the COM
pany which established and developed
me electric light and power business ~
the District Of Columbia -
Inc United States Electric Light
ing Company developed this bnsi-
ness. and at the time it was taken
oser I've oy the power company it was
very small initial concern. and T. ia
exceedingly unlikely that any cost
whatsoever in the nature Of con-
celVers commission or promoter's
commission attached to the enter
Prise; Prise. ihe business was developed
years before it's acquisition bv the
power company. and there is not the
slightest evidence in the record that
any SUCH cost was ever paid by it.
dS.Is no mold that the public is to be
Is pure fgment Of the imagination
unsupported by any evidence Ia viii
out justification either in law or fair
dealing. which latter the public util-
ity owes to its patrons"
Development Cost.
In the estimate made by the enpi-
neer Of the power company a claim
of $2.115.323 was made for what ho
called development costs, under his
reproduction theory. This figure was
arrived at by applying an arbitr,r,
percentage to his reproduction cost NJ
the physical property of the nowar
company. Referring to this claim tho
court says:
The theory upon which such a
claim was based seems to be that dur
ing certain period of the power
company's existence it must have in
Cured losses incident to the ernan
sion Of its business. either by obso-
lescence caused by change of con
struction or advancement of the art.
or because Of securing the PATRONAGE
which 1T now has. While it is tr1e
that such costs might attach under q
purely hypothetical construction vet
when they are claimed as a basis unon
which consumers are required to pay
rot hypothetical but an actual re-
turn. there should be at least soma
evidence that they actually did occur
in the existing plant"
An item of 81. 500 900 for what is ca,l.d
| easements in the public street was also
claimed by the company. In disapproy
| ing this item Justice Gould saws.
| whether the privilege to use the n,b.
| lie streets which the power COMPANY
| possesses should be called a franchise
| privilege or an easement, is of No
| consequence. The power company claims
that its actual occupation and use oS
the streets under this privilege riyes
| - ga No''c'iS'e eiiNiCIi, dHu gives TO this
easement separate and distinct value
which 1t has a right to capitalize a.
Destructive of Public Rights.
To claim that these so-called e,so
ments which cost the power comnan,
| nothing. without which it could NOT
| perform it's public duty, and which -
/ is allowed to exercise to enable n 70
| do so, can be capitalized against the
consumer of its product in any sum
whatsoever Is to make the public use
Continued on Page 2. Column IL