Evening star., 1923-06-21
EMOTIONS FILED
IN VALUATION CASE
D. c. Asks New Accounting
and Power Company Wants
Old Set Aside.

Chief Justice Mccoy of the District
Supreme Court today heard argu-
ments of counsel in the Potomac Elec-
tric Power Company valuation case,
1t is expected the court will take the
question under consideration and dis
pose of it when d decision has been
reached on the future impounding
proposition on which he heard argu-
ments recently.
Two motions were before the court
today. Corporation Counsel stephens
and Special Counsel Syme, for the
Public Utilities Commission, asked
the court to set a date for the re-
valuation of the property of the pow
er company in conformity with their
Interpretation of the decision of the
Court of Appeals and o. the United
States Supreme Court. Attorneys S.
r. Bowen and John S. Barbour for
the company. submitted a counter
motion requesting the court to vacate
and annul the valuation found by the
commission May >. 1917.
Commission Contention.
Attorneys Stephens and Syme con-
tended that the United States Su-
preme Court in refusing to take
jurisdiction of an appeal from the
Court of Appeals. which had found in
favor of the power companyS con-
tention that the valuation was worth
less because of failure to consider
prices as of the date of the award.
made it plain that it considered it the
duty of the District Supreme Court
70 amend the valution in the parttcu-
lar in which the commission had
erred.
They read from the Supreme Court
decision where it said. I'VE cannot
= S-in m rl-koC e
intended the court shall revise the
legislative discretion of the commits
sion by considering the evidence and
full record of the case and entering
the order it deems the commission
ouElt to have made A new valua-
ticn by the commission would take
two years and cost $4,000. the COM
missions lawyers asserted.
The Supreme Court was also in
voked by Attorneys Bowen mad Bar
bour for the company. They pointed
out the recent decision in the South
western Bell Telephone case-that
fair valuation cannot be reached
without taking into consideration
cost of labor, material, supplies and
the like at the time the investigation
is made. Estimates for TOMORROW
cannot ignore prices of today, the
Supreme Court said.
Rate Base for Future Use.
The company's counsel contended
that for the court to attempt to re-
value the property would be an as
sumption Of the power of the COM
mission and beyond the jurisdiction
of the court They claimed the only
thing for the court to do under the
decision of the Court of Appeals was
to set aside the erroneous valuation
made by the commission. There is
no evidence in the record, they as
serted to enable the court to make
an original or new valuation as or
the present time. Such new valuation
BY the court as of the date adopted
by the commiSSion-Jul l, 19li-
would be valueless. they averred. as
rate base for the future. when they
said is the only purpose to which II
could be applied and the only JUSTIN
cation and excuse for making it.
The lawyers for the company also
had recourse to the opinion of the
United States Supreme Court refusing
jurisdiction. They claimed that tri-
bunal held the making of valua-
tion to be Legislative function, and
that if performed by the Supreme
Court of the District would be a part
of the legisla tive machinery, and that
the fixing of such valuation looks to
the. future and cannot be retroactive.
but prospe ctive, and limited to use
as the basis for rates of the future" !"
The power of the court as part of
the legislative machinery, they de-
clared, is not intended by the utilities
act to be exercised until after the
commission has performed it's func-
tionS in the matter.