The Washington times., 1923-02-17

be said that what he endeavors to
inculcate is spirit Of complete
fairness on all sides Of the public
utility problem. He wishes the
street railways to demand no more
than fair return upon the value
of the property used in serving the
public. and he believes that COM
petition in performing public util-
ity service is wasteful; that 1t must
be paid for by the people in gen.
eral, and inferentially that it should
be prohibited. And all his conclu-
sions, we agree, might be tersely
summed up on the golden rule
the willingness, the anxiety, of
every party engaged In giving or
receiving public utility service to
treat all other parties as they
would desire to be treated them
selves. 1t seems superfluous to go
further than this, since I think we
must all agree that the rule de-
duced from Mr.. Lewis paper is a
fine and worthy one.
sour own experience as we pro-
gress through life, however, leads
to the sad realization that the rule
is more often discussed than prac-
ticed in business affairs. Sad
though this state of affairs may be.
we must remember it, and, so far
as is humanity possible, we must
improve matters.
Must Prove Good Faith.
Until the public utility COM
/panies everywhere have created in
the public mind a belief in the en-
tire good faith of their policies,
demagogues and men Of il.will gen.
orally will be able to mislead the
public mind by fantastic tales of
all kinds; 30 that it behooves the
enlightened men who are the trus-
tees and custodians Of this vast in
terest---the American Electric Rail
way Association-to do what they
stimulate public belief in street rail-
way policies. This cannot be done
by discussions before such a body
az this, or even by articles printed
in technical or trade publications.
Apparently 1t can be done only by
publicity conducted in the COM
munity affected. And publicity
alone will not serve. It must be
accompanied by works confirming
assertions Of good faith. AS illus
trating what mean by works, may
I, without seeming to be a skeleton
at this feast. conclude by referring
to specific case that comes under
our notice?
Refers to Valuations.
THE Public Utilities Commission
Of the District Of Columbia. pracrl-
entered upon the valuation of the
riryYo noYN7no rN~a doing hyYofnaeS In,
the District Of Columbia, such valu-
atoms being required by the law
above referred to. These valua-
tons were begun In 1914 and con-
cluded In 1915. Naturally, they
were affected by all tho variable
and conflicting factors consequent
upon the war; and 1t would have
been unreasonable to expect that
the valuations, however large their
totals, would be accepted without
protest by the companies concerned.
No criticism can, therefore, Justly
be made of any company that ohal-
lenges these valuations, because in
it's opinion the unit prices used
therein were too low, or because
the valuations did not, for example.
cover the complete cost OF repro
duCtton.
Depends on Confidence.
Differences of opinion might with
great propriety arise as to these and
other details, but believe that it Is
not speaking too strongly to say that
when a valuation Is challenged, not
only for these reasons, but because
1t fails to include allowances for in
flated assets in the way Of rights or
physical property never used in the
public service, and for commissions
or cash payments alleged to have
been made to purely speculative pro-
motors. then the public, aware of the
claim that 1t shall be made for all
eternity to pay rates that shall in
Clude a fair return upon such items
as these. may we'll be excused if it
turns a deaf or skeptical ear to other
and possibly more meritorious pleas,
And SO, with apologies for hav-
Ing even limited at disagreeable
note. may CloS0 by sugaesting that