Evening star., 1923-02-26
PEPCO VALUATION
HEARING IS BEGUN
U. S. Supreme Court Listens
to Arguments on Questions
It Propounded.
THREE POINTS AT ISSUE
Utilities Commission Attorneys
Contend Tribunal Has
Proper Jurisdiction.
THREE POINTS AT ISSUE

Hearing of the case of the Public IT'LL
ities Commission of the District OF Co.
Euuobia against the Potomac Electric
Power Company was started IN the
United States Supreme Court today.
The case involves the valuation of the
Gonpanys property by the commission,
upon which electric light rates are
fixed. Corporation Counsel stephens
and c. H. Syme appeared for the COM
mission and :. T.. Bowen. John A.
Carver and John s. Barbour for the
company.
The arguments il the case We're ad-
dressed TO three questions which the
court propounded to tho parties to the
suit at a previous hearing, namely,
whether Congress can vest i'll the court
the power to review the proceedings of
-he Public Utilities Commission by re-
viewing the act creating the commits
sion, whether an appeal can be made
70 the highest court until final Judgment
mas been pronounced in the District
Court of Appeals, ana ~hether such
judgment is final.
Contention of Counsel.
Counsel for the Public Utilities
Commission, in their brief. contended
that appellate jurisdiction rested in
the case under Article III, section :,
Of the Constitution, which extends
jurisdiction TO cases arising under
he Constitution or under the laws
of the United States" The present
controversy, Il was submitted, IS
case within the meaning or the Con.
stitution unless il presents case or
what is really original jurisdiction,
or unless It is an attempt TO Impose
administrative legislative duties on
.sThe present litigation" counsel
neld, "is case arising both under
the Constitution and also under law
of the United States, and this court
has appellate jurisdiction"
In reply TO the second question. as
IN the lower court, the brief for the
commission argued that there Is
nothing in the Constitution which re-
quires a final judgment as a neces-
sary element for the exercise OF the
appellate power of the Supreme
Court.
on the third question as to whether
the Judgment was final, the briel con-
cinued:
location of Judgment.
1t is questionable whether this
Judgment Is q final Judgment in form,
but there cannot be much doubt how
ever that it was q final Judgment In
substance. The Court of Appeals held
that the commission and Supreme
Court Of the District of Columbia
both erred in fundamental respect
in arriving at q reproduction value or
the companys property and in not
giving proper weight to the high
costs prevailing between the first day
Of July, 1914. the day fixed by the
commission for the reproduction, and
December 81, 1916, as Of which time
the final valuation was made by the
commission. The commissions finding
of fair value was s11.231.170.43. The
reproduction value claimed by the
company was s23.235.367.
with this disparity in figures it is
apparent that this was the most
serious element of the case. Under
the ruling of the Court of Appeals the
Supreme Court of the District ap-
parently could do nothing but issue
an injunction against the commission
from using or putting into force its
valuation as a basis for the making
OF rates.
by an early decision Of this court,
IN Grant vs. Phoenix Insurance Com
pany, 1t was then established, and 1t
has been consistently adhered to ever
since that final decree or judgment.
ror the purposes Of appeal to this
court, is one that terminates the con-
troversy ON the merits Of the case
ana that a judgment or decree is final
on the merits when II is final ON all
matters within the pleadings'
Steps in Trial.
In the instant case the petition
nled In the trial court prayed that
me valuation fixed by the Public Util-
tiles Commission be vacated and set
aside as unlawful inadequate, and un-
reasonable, and that the commission
De en1oined from attempting to put
INTO operation any rates based thereon
The trial court sustained the vaIua-
tion and dismissed the petition. The
court of Appeals reversed the judg-
ment of the trial court, holding, in
substance. that the valuation was un-
lawful inadequate. and unreasonable
through failure to fix the valuation
as OF December 81, 1916, and remand
ed the case for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion
This was disposal Of the case upon
the merits of the controversy.
The power company prayed to have
the valuation set aside and the Court
Of Appeals granted that relief. The
controversy was thus ended, inasmuch
as 1t was utterly beyond the power
uation and the only function that
court could perform would be the
ministerial one Of entering the decree
OF the Court of Appeals vacating the
valuation.
Trial Court Function.
"The trial court could not direct the
commission to make a new valuation,
as that would be a Legislative func-
tion. II the commission should pro-
coed to make a revaluation, giving
effect to the elements of value de-
clared legal by the Court of Appeals
the valuation would be an entirely
new one, which would be the subject
OF new proceeding in the equity
court
''Jt follows, then. that the language
used by the Court OF Appeals in re-
manding the case for further proceed.
tngs not inconsistent with its decision
is purely formal and that the func-
tion of the court is ended when 1t de-
cides whether proposed valuation or
rate Is or Is not confiscatory."
The Potomac Electric Power Com
pany's counsel. in their brief, answer
ing the questions In reverse of the
order in which they were propounded,
insisted that the Judgment appealed
from was final, and that the Court
of Appeals not only reversed the
Judgment of the lower court, but di-
rectod that court to proceed in ac-
cordance with it's opinion. The deci-
sion of the Court of Appeals was
based upon two grounds: That the
trial court did not exercise the DOW
ars conferred upon 1t by the act; that
the trial court erred in approving the
valuation made by the commission
as Of a date anterior to the time
when the valuation was made.
Result OF Decision.
sIf the decision Of the Court of
Appeals had been based solely upon
the first ground, its direction to the
trial court to proceed accordingly
would have been in the nature Of a
direction for a new trial or reheartng