The herald. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1905-1953, 1921-04-07
AS a Further Ground for Grant
ing a Second Rehearing in
This Case 1t Is Urged:

ing Second Rehearing in
This Case 1t Is Urged:
"That opinion and decree aforesaid is based
exclusively on figures supplied by the Cumberland
pany had closed Its case in December, 1920 which
figures include only the months of August, Sep
TENDER, October and November, 1920, figures which
reached interveners expert shortly before February
"a, 1921 and too late for him to make any examina
ton and answer thereto"
We have given consideration to all Of the evil
dence in the case. When the heard in
December, 1920, the statements which were intro
ducd by the Company had been compiled for presen-
tation at earlier date, namely October Is, 1920.
These not the latest available figures and did
not show the Companys investment for the last
four months previous to the December hearing. The
statements which had been compiled by the Com
pany ended with the year ending July 81, 1920,
received careful consideration. 1t was important
and considered by majority of the Commission
to be necessary to have figures subsequent to July
81, 1920, and therefore, request made of the
Company that these figures be supplied, They were
supplied In due course, and were available to the
expert accountant employed by the City Of New
Orleans when he examining the Company's
1921. The expert accountant for the City of New
Orleans, however, did not use the figures beyond
July 81, 1920, although were advised during the
hearing by counsel for the telephone company that
such figures had been placed at his disposal while
he was in Atlanta. These figures show that after
July 3d. 1920, there was very heavy decline in the
the net annual return the investment in the state
far below what courts had held to be
confiscatory. We do not think that any minded
court or commission would have acted otherwise
than to have considered the latest available figures
They were extremely important to the Commission
and to the public In this because if they had
shown the reverse resultant is, If the Company's
earnings had increased after July 3D. 1920, its
would have been much weakened. As we under
stand the purpose Of reopenng the case, 1t is to
place before US figures that Will be brought down
to the latest possible date Our order requires the
telephone company to make semi:annual reports of
may at frequent intervals be advised of the cond-
tons and be in position to prevent excessive
ings from the telephone business in this state.
1t is further urged by the applications for a
second rehearing:
out due and full consideration Of the evidence and
exhibits"
Before rendering order dated February 26,
1921 the financial statements of the Company had
been before These statistics covered the first
year OF private operation after the telephone prop
erty had been returned to its owners, for a period
and were fully understood The latest statement
covering the four months period beginning August
l, 1920, had been in the hands of the Commission
for several weeks. None of these figures were con-
tradicted, were they in any manner attacked by
the expert accountant employed by the City of New
filed by the expert accountant for the City of New
Orleans verifiI/ the correctness of the statement
flled IN december, lS2o, and while they had been
at his disposal for number of weeks, he did not
critcise them nor attempt to show that they we're
In any manner incorrect misleading or false. The
fullest and most careful consideration was given
to his evidence and exhibits by the two Commits
sioners who heard the case.
1t is further urged as a reason for granting a
second rehearing:
"That the said decree was made effective on
the second judicial day after it was entered con-
rary to, and in violation of the Commissions own
rules and regulations No. T. which provides as fol-
lows: Decisions and orders of the Commission shall
become effective after ten judicial days have elapsed
from the day they are rendered and either party
de o apply at an bN s in the wd d
with the Secretary of the Commission at Baton
Rouge three copies Of petition setting forth sub
stantially the for which he is dissatisfied
with the decision or order of the Commission"
As we have previously stated this in an ex parte
application for authority to increase telephone ex-
change rates at the various exchanges in the State
Of Louisiana. The Commissions order in this case
granted the authority asked for An effective date
was named, Article 2S6 of the Constitution of
Louisiana, as amended, provides that:
Every order or decision of the Commission
fixing establishing rate or charge for the
transportation OF passengers freight or for the
phone or telegraph within the state shall 90 into
effect at such time may be fixed by the Com
mission and shall remain in effect and be complied
with unless and until set aside by the Commission
by final judgment of a court of comnetent
Jurisdiction rendered final trial in suit to set
aside and annul the same"
Rule No. 70 Of the Rules and Regulations of
the Commission provides that:
AN authorities for rates issued BY the Com.
mission may be made effective at once or az soon
Advert