The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-04-25
HIKE PHONE RATES
Continued from Page one.l

Continued from Page Onel
litigation in Kansas" Chairman Reed
wrote IF the findings which are
universally in favor of the telephone
company are adopted. and the prin-
cipIes embodied in his report should
govern the making of utility rates IN
Kansas, such rates will be increased
from so to 100 per cent, for on the
basis used. practically all the utility
rates in Kansas are such that the
companies could force this commits
sion, under the findings embodied In
this report, to increase their rates or
the courts would do it if the COM
mission refused"
Chairman Reed further asserts:
Commissions and courts over the
whole country have generally refused
to fix rates upon n basis of inflated
costs obtained in the last few years.
The referee in this case does so with
out a culver. - The public utilities
commission will fight these cases thru
the Shawnee county district court and
if necessary thru the supreme court
of the state. If the referee has cor
rectly stated the law. and if the court
should sustain his findings. then the
law should be amended at the earliest
opportunity
Trouble Over Valuation.
Much of the contention in the phone
rate case was in regard to physical
valuation Of the plant and property of
the Bell company in the towns af-
fected. The Bell company asked for
a rate based on reproduction cost.
The state commission commended for
a rate which represented original cost.
The commissioner asserted that the
natural trend of prices should govern
and made middle of the road find
ing. This situation is strongly set out
in his determination of property
values.
At Atchison the Bell company
claimed physical property valuation
reproduction cost-of $451,72S. The
commissions original cost values were
$SO1,1 McDermott held that un-
deprecated value of the property was
$4,000 and that its present value
was IS per cent or SSS2,Oo0.
Reproduction values of S251-114
were claimed for Arkansas City. The
utilities commission engineers asserted
it should be $214,961. McDermott
found undepreciated value of $3.50, GOO
and its present value SO per cent Of
S213,6
Figures For E.Idorado.
Eldorado reproduction figures
claimed by the Bell company were
s264.OOO. The state commission in
sisted reproduction based on original
costs should be S20S.7S0. Commits
sioner McDermott found present unde-
preciated values s245.0 600, and with
plant deprecated to 81 per cent, $215,-
900.
For Lyons the deprecated value
OF the plant-S6.5 per cent-was
listed by the commissioner at $4,000.
The company claimed S115.260 the
commission. S7S.69S. The 'undepre-
ciated value was held to be 1900.
At Hutchinson the company asked
S6s6,54S reproduction value The
commission insisted it should be
s46S. 527. McDermott held it was SIS
per cent or S545.OOO.
a valuation of S19S.ssO was claimed
by the company for Winfield The
utilities commission asked to have il
lowered to S142.920- The commits
sioner held il was SS.6 per cent of
$4,000 or $3.50, 600.
For Great Bend the Bell company
asked a valuation OF S129.O0a. the
utilities commission $S2.225. McDer-
mott found the plant condition so per
cent and gave it a valuation of SIS zoe
ON a present fair reproduction value
or $4,000.