The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1922-02-01
Atlanta Gas
Rate Controversy
Some Far-Reaching Truths Of
the Gas Rate Decision
Atlanta ] Ou.naO

Atlanta j OulQdl).
In refusing the injunction asked
by the Georgia Railway and Pow
er Co. againSt the recently order
Cd reduction in the Atlanta gas rate.
the United States district court en-
phases certain principles Of far
ranging import to the common
veal Consumers, numbered by
thousands. naturally are graufed
that upon judicial inquiry the law
and the facts OF the case have
proved 10 be such as 10 justify q
rate that promises apDreciable say
inSs in gas bills But Of greater
moment are the courts basic con-
clusions, touching the questions az
issue between the company and
the Georgia Railroad Commission
the latter standing rs conServer OF
the general interests.
Twice during the war period the
commission authorized increases in
the gas rate. as we'll as in electric
light and power charges and in
street car rarcs: in November,
1918. the rate was raised from S
per thousand cubic feet TO S1.15,
and in February, 1921. TO $50. IN
allowing these advar ceS, against
which there was vigorous protest,
the commission stated that so soon
as in its Judgment conditions war
! ranted. il would reopen the ques-
.,th
vision. Accordingly, in June,
1921. il ordered 4 reduction Of the
$50 rate to $1.G5. This still left
the company charging upards of
fifty per cent more than prior to
November, 1913. AS the months
wore on and general costs con-,
-tinucd to decline the commission
cited the company to show cause
why fclthcr reduction should not
be made, and after due hearing
prescribed Il rate Of sl.55, effec-
tive January !, 1922 In resisting
this order through appeal to the
federal courts, the company con-
tended, amongst other things,
that the rate had not been prop
erly arrived at and that its en-
forccmcnt would amount 10 the
taking of property without due
process of law.
The court holds, in the first place,
that the protested rate was fixed
after full hearing, under laws pro-
a SaI p,
clear and comprehensive opinion
! Of the railroad commission recog-
nizes as the applicable principles
Of law rules which we think are
substantially correct, and It evinces
a full and conscientious considera-
tion of the evidence Due process
Of law has been afforded"
AS to whether the rate thus fixed
is "conhscatory, the court de-
clarcs: That question depends here
on the value of the private property
taken for use and the compensa-
| ton probably to be afforded by
the rate fixed, as compared with
! the net returns received in the 10
cality by other investments of cap
ital of comparable security and
permanency" Pursuing this line.
i the court is of the opinion that
the commission in estimating the
value Of the property as a basis for
fair earnings and charges did right
10 exclude from consideration the
value OF the gas company's fran
chises. For, while it is not to be
denied that such franchises, ven
dible and taxable as they are,
may not be taken from the own
erS without just compensa-
ton" at the same time, The fixing
Of Il just and reasonable charge TO
be made by q public service cor
poration is neither thc taking from
it of these franchises nor. the use.
of them, in the sense Of the con-
stitution" And now ponder these
mcaningful words Of the. decision:
Business which from its nature
or from circumstances Of monopoly.
is Of public concern is undertaken
+, with the implication that charges
made the public therein shall be
reasonable. Private property de-
voted thereto becomes affected
with Il public interest. Public reg
ulation Of the charges is but the
enforcement of the duty 10 make
! only reasonable charges. Mum VS..
Illinois Gt 1I2 Tt may he
said that in Il franchise granted to