Evening star., 1921-07-14
Riuht of Public Utilities Com
mission Is Challenged
at Hearing.
OPENING GUNS FIRED
FOR CHEAPER TRAVEL
Consideration of Zoning System Op-
posed as Contrary to Charters OF
Traction Companies.

The right of the Public Ctlntles
Commission to give the Capital Trac-
tion Company the same rate OF fare
required by the Washington Railway
and Electric Company was questioned
by William Nick. Clayton. attorney Tor
the Federation of Citizens Assocla-
1ions, at the opening of the street car
rate case at the District building
today.
Attorney Osborne I. Yellot of the
Washington Railway and Electric
Company argued that the utilities act
requires the commission to fix rate
Of fare that will not discriminate be-
Tween the two groups of car riders.
AT the opening of the hearing Col.
kutZ chairman of the commi SSioa, an
nounced that he and his colleagues
had set up three questions upon which
they desire to hear arguments. They
are:
Program Of Commission.
"FirSt-Whether the commission
exceeded it's power in fixing uniform
:. rate of fare for all street railway
Hines.
misunderstanding that the COM
mission had the right to keep the rate
uniform. should the present rate OF
fare be continued or changed:
II a change is decided upon. be ef-
ifective on September 1 or at an ear
lier date?'
Speaking to the first question. Col.
'KutZ said:
..It has been implied by the FEEDER
alton of Citizens Associations and by
certain members of Congress that the
commission is without authority to
fix the same rate of fare for all street
railway companies. The commission
r, hn y
lit can on this question. If it is true
that the commission was wrong. it de-
sires to correct the situation.
Before beginning to argue against
the commissions right to give the
Capital Traction Company whatever
rate of fare TIE other system must
have Mr.. Clayton made motion
that the commission strike from the
petition of the Washington Railway
and Electric the clause in which 1t
given the Capital Tfaction-Sompany.
Motion OSerruled.
The attorney for the citizens ar
,xued that the Washington Railway
and Electric has no right to ask for
a rate of fare Cor any company that
,3t does not own or control.
Col. Kutz overruled the motion.
Mr.. Clayton then moved that the
commission exclude from the case
teny evidence looking to the estab-
llishment of a zone system of fares.
lHe based this motion on the conten-
ftion that the charters of the com
tpanies specifically provide that only
IA single fare shall be charged Ior d
continuous ride on any of the street
railway lines. \ zone system. ne
argued. would mean two fares for a
continuous ride.
IF the federation contends that the
commission must fix separate rates
60 ha then
1t seems to me zone system might
have to be considered,' replied Col.
kutz.
The chairman. however. announced
that the commission would reserve a
decision on Mr.. Claytons motion to
strike out the zone system until 1t
has heard arguments on its right to
fix uniform rate of fare.
Mr. Clayton Questioned.
Col. KutZ asked Mr.. Clayton if the
commission would have to fix Separ-
ate rates of fare for the Georgetown
and Tennallytown and the City and
Suburban companies if it had to fix
Il separate rate between the Capital
Traction and the w. r. and E.
Mr.. Clayton answered that from a
strictly legal aspect the Georgetown
and Tenleytown and the City and
Suburban are separate corporations.
But for twenty years, he said, they
have been controlled and operated
by the Washington Railway and flcc-
trio Company and are part of that
system.
Mr.. Clayton declared that in keep
Ing these roads as Independent cor
porations the Washington Railway
and Electric has not violated .he
letter of the merger act of 1900, but
he contended that the Washingt on
Railway and Electric has violated the
spirit of the merger act of 1900 in
not doing away with the separate
identity of the Georgetown and Ten
1eytown and the City and Suburba n
companies.
"If we have the legal right 20 fix
1ngton Railway and Electric. the
Georgetown and Tenleytown and the
City and Suburban, why haven't we
the right to include the Capital Trac-
tion Company?' asked Col. Kutz
IF you want to take the cold legal
view without considering the equi-
table side of the question, you have
that right" Mr.. Clayton replied.
Position Declared Reversed.
At this point Mr.. Clayton was in
terrupted by Attorney John S. Bar
bour of the Washington Railway and
Electric. who asked if he did not
agree in a previous case that the
Washington Railway and Electric and
the Potomac Electric Power Company
were entitled TO COinDlneQ rate OF
return.
Mr.. Clayton replied that he believed
he did take that position. He added
that that was an instance of the de-
sire of the citizens to be fair to the
Washington Railway and Electric.
Mr.. Barbour then asked him if he
did not contend against separate
rates of fare in rate case in 1917.
Mr.. Clayton replied that the citizens
had gone with the commission in that
case and had not objected to the uni
form rate of fare during the war
period
Mr.. Barbour then asked Mr.. Clayton
why he had changed his position in
this case
Mr.. Clayton replied that the coun-
try is now returning to a state OF
normalcy and that things permitted
a few years ago should not continue
now.
Attorneys CHALLENGED.
He challenged attorneys for the
company to find any section in the
utilities law that gives the commits
sion the right to fix the same rate OF
fare for all companies in the District
When Attorney Yellc' took the
paragraph of the utilities act, which
provides that rates shall be non dis
criminatory. He explained that he
GNok this wording to mean non-dis-
= Continued on Page 4. Column ~