The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1921-07-14
SEPARATE
.FAREASKED.
Lines
Clayton, Federation Counsel,
Calls on ~. c. to End Dis
crepancies in Earnings.

Disc cussion of the question OF
whether the fares on the street
car lines in the District shall be
lower or remain the same, or
whether a zoning system shall be
introduced on the lines, was begun
today by the Public Utilities Com
mission.
As to Separate Fares.
William Nick Clayton. chairman
Of the Public Utilities Committee OF
the Federation of Citizens Associa
tions, in 4 dramatic plea to the com
mission asked that the, commission
disregard the plea for coming sys.
Railway and Electric Company, as
it had no power to do so.
He also asked that the commission
consider each company separately in
fixing q fare. 20 that. the Capital
Traction Company would not be al
loved q fare that would give them
about II per cent. en-. te6ar~ fair val
uation. while the same fare would
give the Washington Railway and
Electric Company about s per cent
on thetr fair valuation.
In opening his argument. Clayton
asked that the Commission strike
Railway and Electric Company any
reference to the fixing Of fare on
the lines Of the Capital Traction
Company, saying that the Capital
Traction Company was present to
answer for itself and that the Wash
ington Railway and Electric Com
pany had no right to speak for any
one but itself. Commissioner Kutz,
chairman of the Public Utilities Com
mission over-ruled his motion on this
matter. tE~
Clayton contended in his arsu-
ment that the commission, under
the law. had no right to provide
different fares in different zones,
as requested by the Washington
Railway and Electric Company, be-
expressly stated that a certain fare
might be charged for ride on the
companys cars from one terminus
to another. Clayton contended
that the commission had no right
to- change the charter OF the COM
pa nies, which they would be doing
II they allowed different fares In diff
ferent zones.
He said that the commission
should consider each company
separately. in fixing fares. 900.
He did. however. say that he would
agree to a zone system II that was
the only thing that would save them
from bankruptcy.
Traction Counsel Challenge.
During the course OF his argument
Clayton was interrupted several times
by attorneys for the Washington Rail
way and Electric Company. who chal
lensed him with changing his views
since the last hearing on street car
rates. Attorney Barbour or the rail-
way company, at one point IN Clay
toms argument asked him II he had
not asked that the fares on both the
Capital Traction Company and the
Washington Railway and Electric
Company be made the same at a pre-
vious hearing. Clayton said he had
not.
Barbour then quoted from a hearing
held In May, 1919. in which Clayton
said that he was in favor Of the same
rate for both companies Clayton an
swered him by saying that during the
war times the Federation OF Citizens
"A associations had conceded many
things at that time because Of the
abnormal conditions.
I'VE we're willing to go along with
the Commission at that time" Clay
ton said because we believed that
conditions were not normal, but we
now believe that the patrons OF the
Capital Traction Company have been
MIXED long enough to help out the
Washington Railway and Electric
Company" a.
Parody On Scripture.
He created much amusement at the
hearing by paraphrasing the classics
to read: TOO long Ham hast thou
abused our patience"
After Clayton finished his argument.
Osborne I. Ysllott. of counsel for the
railway company. answered Clayton's
arguments by quoting from the public
utilities law, in which he endeavored
to show that the commission had \
right ofix rates provided that the
rates be not discriminatory, and that
a separate rate of fare for the Capital
Traction Company would be discrimi.
natory, especially IL the fare was lower
than that allowed the Washington
Railway and Electric Company.
i'elioti contended that the Constitu.
ton of the United States guarantees
the street car companies a reasona bic
rate. inaamuch as rates that would not
bs Just would be discriminatory.