The Washington times., 1921-07-20
CARD OF G9 |PEPC0PLAN
TURNED IN IS FLAYEO
By BARNES As ILLEGAL
j. M. chamberIin Notes Tangible
Flaws in Scheme to Barter
for Lower Fares.
By MAI. OLIVER p. NEWMAN,

By MAI. OLIVER p. NEWMAN,
sioners. District Of Columbia.
Hats of to Justin Morrill, Cham
berlin.
It's been many . long day since
so strong and convincing a voice
has been raised in the District of
Columbia in defense Of street car
and electric light patrons.
Tho Patrons Chaaupioa.
Everybody In Washington who
drops q tokentln the box or pays bm
tor electric Light owes him debt of
gratitude. He has presented to the
Public Utilities Commission a set of
reasons AGAINST letting the Wash
ington Railway and Electric whoop
light rates to make up street car
losses which will be difficult to the
point of impossibfiity to ignore.
Here's one little point made by Mr..
Chamberlain, which. when carefully
considered, is bound to impress the
public and the Commission as a great
big point:
II the present situation wcre re-
versed, II would be impossible for the
Utilities Commission to COMPEL the
power company TO charge higher light
atcs and turn the excess profits over
to the street car company.
Therefore, Il would be ILLEGAL
for the Commission to CONSENT 10
the thing just because tho railway
company wants to do IL.
Let's not forget. in discussing the
case, which the Utilities Commission
hoo aIx
what it's high points are.
l. The Washington Railway and
Electric owns all the $4,000 900 of
stock OF the power company.
2. The power company is making
7.51 per cent on the present rate Of
Sh cents per kilowatt hour.
8. II has asked the Commission to
INCREASE the rate to 10 cents per
kilowatt hour.
4. 1t proposes to turn the extra cent
and half over TO the street car COM
pany, to make up losses on street car
operation.
5. AS an inducement II has offered
to reduce street car fares ! cent.
A Reverse Situation.
Now, let us suppose that for some
reason sufficient unto them, the trac-
ton officials who are also the power
company officisis) did not want to
use the electric light profits in the
street car company. There are half
a dozen good and plausible reasons
that might obtain. Suppose natural
gas was only short distance away
and was coming into town in fierce
and the power company
wanted to keep it's patrons, together
with their good will.
Under such conditions Il might
easily be violently opposed to an IN.
CREASE in electric light rates.
But suppose the Public Utilities
Commission said: You must IN.
CREASE electric light rates. in order
to make up street car losses"
We can easily and properly carry
the case a step further. Suppose
the company had a different scheme
for increasing street car revenues.
Suppose, for instance. it preferred
LOWER fares. on the theory that
more people would ride IL II were
cheaper. and the company would
make more money.
But suppose the commission In
sisted on INCREASING hight rates
because that was the CORNERSTONE 5
idea of the proper thing to do.
Difficult to Imagine.
, DO you imagine for one minute
that such an order, in the face Of
opposition from the company in the
court, would stand for a minute?
Can you conceive of court allow
ing a commission TO force an IN
CREASED rate on a company thnt
didn't want an increase in the first
placer
And. in the second place, can you
conceive of the court sustaining an
order that attempted to FORCE the
company to use light company profits
for street car operations?
Those questions answer themselves.
You cannot. Neither can ANYBODY
else. IL this was a scheme which the