Evening star., 1922-11-25
Greater Income Than Other
Line Does Not Demand Re-
duction, Says Stephens.
LOSS OF CITIZENS PLEA
NOW BELIEVED CERTAIN
Corporation Counsel Cites Former
Act of Congress as Precedent
for Uniform Charge.

The law does not require reduc-
ion in fare on the lines of the Capr-
tai Traction Company at this time Oh
the ground that that company is
earning more money than the Wash
ington Railway and Electric Com
pany. Corporation Counsel Stephens
advised the Public Utilities Commits
sion today.
The commissions legal adviser
rendered the opinion in reply to the
contention of the Federation of Citi-
zens' Associations. which applied for
cut in fare on the Capital Traction
cars. The federation took the posi-
tion that the commission was acting
without authority in maintaining the
same fare for both companies when
that rate gave the Capital Traction
Il larger return than il netted the
Washington Railway and Electric.
Expect Rejection Of Plea.
With this opiniGn from Mr.. Sic
phens before them. II is believed a. the
District building that the commits
sion will reject the federation's pc
tition for a lower rate to Capita
Traction riders only.
The corporal ation counsel told the Com
missioners that IT, his opinion they would
be more liable 10 sscharge of discrimina-
ton if they fixed different rates for each
company than they are now for keeping
the rate uniform, even though the single
rate gives one road greater return
than the other.
He said the charge of discrimination
might be made If they allowed pa assem-
1 n
the business section for ) cents on one
company's lire, while the other company
charged Gig cents for substantially the
same trip.
Question Of Public Interest.
! The commission asked Mr. Stephens
! for legal opinion after William Nick.
Clayton of the federation and Charles
; T. Clayton of the Columbia Heights
association had filed briefs attacking
the commissions right TO continue the
present fare on the CAPITAL Traction
lines.
Mr.. Stephens tells the city heads
that there is no point of law involved
in the question of uniform rate of
! fare for both companies. They should
decide the case. he said. by the ex-
ercise of judgment and discretion as
to whother single rate of fare
would he more in the public interest
than separate rates.
At the hearing it was testified that
the present fare was yielding the
Capital Traction Company approxi-
mately per cent on.the commissions
valuation. while the Washington Rail-
way and Electric is falling short Of a
3 per cent return. Mr. Stephens
opinion follows. in part:
! Opinion Of stephens.
| 1t is argued. however that the
commission has no power under the
law to fix a rate of return upon val
uation. which rate will be greater
for one company than for another.
| 1t is true that the law itself says
nothing whatever about fixing fair
| return upon valuation. but simply re-
qulres the commission to ascertain
| the fair value. and points out the
steps 10 be followed in so doing: and
| this very matter was used by 9ne of
| the writers. who filed brief in this
| case. as the foundation for an argu-
ment made several times before the
commission in public hearings that
the commission had no power under
| the law to fix rate of return az
such. but only had the power to fix a
! charge for services rendered which
wOuld De a 1alr charGe to the public.
! The law. however. is too well settled
at the present time to concede such
I an argument. If the decisions of the
courts and the public utilities COM
missions throughout the country have
| establish ed any principle firmly. they
i have established the principle that a
public utility corporation is entitled
| to earn a fair return upon the money
| invested in the enterprise. This Is
one of the principal elements to be
! considered in rate fixing. What is a
| fair return must. under all circum-
stances. be a question to be decided
! by the public utilities commission
| having supervision of the subject.
| Certainly it cannot be conclusively
said. as argued on behalf of the citi-
zens' associations. that il is discrimi-
| nation, within the meaning of the
| law. to allow one rate of return for
one company and a larger rate for an
| Continued on Page .. Column S.)