Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-03-08
HOLDS OUTSIDE
PERSONS HAVE
RIGHTT0B BOOKS
Johnson Dissents From Ma
jOrity View on Examination
of Utility Concerns.
PRESENTS HIS VIEWS

The public service commission has the
right to authorize outside persons to ex-
anime the books Of utility concerns which
have cases before the commissioner, Com
missioner Fred Bates johnson declared
in a dissenting opinion in the case of the
Indiana and Michigan Electric Company,
which is petitioning for an increase.
The majority of the commission ex-
pressed the opposite opinion IN ruling
handed down several days ago.
The dissenting opinion in part follows:
The majority opinion states:
THE question presented by petition is
whether or-not the commission has the
power to authorize an agent to examine
the books and property of petitioner,
when such agent is not Of the commits
sion's staff"
Having thus stated the question. the
majority opinion fails to answer 1t
squarely. The syllabus seems to indi-
cate that the commission does not have
the power to appoint an Independent
agent, paid by respondent. to act as the
commissions agent to examine petition
er's books. Other phrases and sentences
in the body of the order indicate the be
lief that the commission has that power
but should not exercise 1t in this cause.
do not believe that the real question
is the one stated in the majority opinion
This particular question was not con-
troVerted at the argument. Both re
spcndent and petitioner agree as to this
question. They both answered yes"
Both agree as to the law. Under the
theory Of both parties, the commission
has the power to authorize an agent, on
Its behalf, to examine the books and rec
ords Of petitioner.
The real question is whether or not the
r1rsrfe SSH h,,~
under that power, authorize en- agent
other than member of the accounting
department of the commission. to ex-
anime the books of the petitioner in the
cause The commission has the power.
should 1t exercise that pOweri
L believe the commission should exer-
else that power. 1t is true that the reg
ufar audit prepared by the accounting
department is available to both parties.
In the light Of its knowledge Of Its own
books and records petitioner, however,
mas certain advantage. 1t is able to
erOss-examine as TO this audit, and pre-
sent evidences modifying or amplifying
the showing OF the audi.
Respondents should have the same Op-
portunity to examine and present evil
dence modifying or simplifying the con-
missions audit. 1t has that naked right
to cross-examine, Of course Such a naked
right is without value however if re
spondent has not original sources of in
examination and analysis OF the audit
Respondent has asked that il be permit
ted to get at the original sources of in
formation in the manner prayed for in
the petition. Denying this prayer means,
in effect, that the public, whether it be
the city, power users or domestic con-
sumers. viii necessarily proceed into a
rate case crippled by insufficient in
formation upon which to base its con-
tentioDs and in that crippled condition
face a healthy opponent that proceeds
and presents Its case, having available
the cOmpletest Of data.
The public should not be compelled to
suffer this handicap. The prayer Of the
petition, at least so far as it asks this
commission to authorize an agent, other
than a member OF its accounting depart
ment, to make an examination, should be
granted. To DO otherwise will not only
compel the respondent TO proceed stun
blingIy in the dark, but will subject the
petitioner to the suspicion that it has
something to conceal.
The agent thus to be appointed should
not be permitted to go on "a fishing ex
petition through all Of the books and
minutes of the petitioner. He should
have access only to such records as bear
on the points at issue.