Perth Amboy evening news., 1921-07-05

lie Service railway by refusal I'd
permit it to collect in fares the cost
of the service rendered is to cripS
pie at the same time the communal
ties it serves"
The brief discusses at length th1.
contention that the value of the
company's property depends in any
way upon the rate of fare. 1T
would be strange, indeed" it is saidj
IF after all the expense to the states.
to the company and to the municss
ipalities to find the value Of this
property so that rate could be-
three years delay, the board should
now determine that it was neces<
sary to first fix the rate and that the
value of the property depended ups
on such rate of fare" 4
Counsel for the company maiu<
tanned that Col. Charles N. Black o.
Ford Bacon & Davis. the firm which,
made the appraisal for the Statos.
advanced no such theory. and that;
what the firm actually did was td
fix a value and then consider fares in
order to determine whether therds
was a rate that would provide opers
ating expenses and fair return upon
the value fixed. Col. Black testif1edx
the brief states. that ten cent rats
would certainly do this and thai
other rates might do 1t. 4
In arriving at the value Of approxA
imately 100000 for Public Ser4
vice Railway Company's property
counsel for the company took as M
basis the testimony of Professor H
C. Anderson, who with Dean Mortis
mer E. Cooley. made the original ar<
praisal of the company. to the Of.
feet that under the average priced
prevailing for the five years. 1916
to 1921, the tructural cost OF the
property was $149,922.236. and
that the development cost. or going;
value. was thirty per cent OF thia'
amount or $44,976.670. To the $685.
sos, S,906 thus obtained was added $6.s
100000 as the value of the contract
with the Public Service Elecr. pf
Company by the terms of which the
railway secures its power at the man y
ufacturing cost to the electric coin \
parry. ~x ~
The Cooley appraisal ana o. III
timony supporting it. it is arguedys
is the only evidence before the Board
which in any way combats the value
of S125 100000 placed upon ihd
property by Ford. Bacon & Davis for.
Tic Stdlt " INV Ia
the "presumptive" value of the props
erty.
The Cooley appraisal Is discussed
in great detail and the testimony Of
witnesses who discussed 1t is thor.
oughly analyzed. The method by
which Dean Cooley arrived at the
structural value of the property is
explained and the testimony of the
witnesses who approved his method
is gone into.
Counsel largely base their inciu.s
sion of a thirty per cent allowances
for "going value" upon the action Cf6
the board in including a similar per-
centage in the value in the Passaics
gas case when the value of the props
erty was fixed by the board. which
action was affirmed by the supremes
court and the court of errors and ap.S
peals.
Going value is differentiated froms
good will" and is held to cover all
the elements of value not included.
in structural value. among them thu
consolidation value. the cost of obs
solete property, deficits in past re4.
turn, development costs and othesS
items. ts
Counsel strongly protest against
any deduction from the value Aof the
property on account of accrued de<
probation. They hold that at the
time of the Cooley appraisal in 1917
the property was in practically mined
ty per cent physical condition and
that as far as rendering service ia
the public was concerned there was
then no need of renewals O: replace-s
ments and that consequently 1t waa
in one hundred per cent operating
condition.
If your coal or gas range does not bak4
or burn. ! will make II or no charge. Ed