The Monmouth inquirer., 1923-07-12
HAIGHT
TROLLEY RULING
Public Service Files Exceptions in
Federal Court, Following Action
by State and municipalities.
CALLS VALUATION TOO LOW
Attack by Both Sides Along Lines
Similar to Points Raised in Past
Decision Rendered After Masters
Finding Basis Of Exceptions.

Trenton.-The Public Service Rail-
way Company valuation of $40 .00O,
600 fixed by Special Master Thomas G..
Haight n the rate ease he heard for
the United States District Court was
formally attacked by the company as
being too low and by the state
through the Public Utilities Commits
sion as too high.
Many of the fundamental findings
OF Mr.. Haight in his study Of the
value of the railway eompany's prop
erty, findings on points that have
been debatable since the case started.
virtually five years ago, are objected
to by both parties along the same
lines as in the past.
Where Mr.. Haight cut down an al
lowanee for an item as it appeared IN
the various appraisals before him, the
Public Service objected; where he
gave a value to another item that
was satisfactory to the company or
even higher than the value previously
fought by the state or the interested
municipalities, the latter objected.
The Public Service protested some
OF the methods used by the special
master because they resulted in a
lower valuation than the company
claims. The state and municipaIi-
ties protested others on the ground
that it made the value higher than it
really should be.
From a reading Of the exceptions
filed with the court in Trenton it
would appear that both sides are sat
isied with the testimony and evil
dence before the court, just as they
were with the evidence before the
state courts. but that neither is salts
fed with the name in which the
special master arrived at his conc1u-
sions. The company took exception
to Mr.. Haight's ruling on fifteen
counts, while the municipalities and
the state jointly found twenty-one
points upon which they differed with
the master.
Fundamental Error Urged
The states objections go deeper
than do those of the Public Service.
4 The state claims that the special
master erred fundamentally by de.
claring that the costs of material, Ia
Dor and equipment have become sta
Bile and normal, thereby making the
value at present day prices a fair one.
The state declares that these prices
are abnormal and would materially
decline il a reasonable period and
49, 4LH-rnoz- ~ ~ rD< qo4~ - a.
the valuation on present day prices.
Further, the state says, the special
master took the average Of prices of
days in 1921 and early in 1922 upon
which to compute the reproduction
cost new of the Public Service prop
erty, whereas he should have taken
the average prices for the years 1911
to 1915 and appreciated the same by
the addition of a percentage which
would represent the increased fair
average Of prices it was estimated
would prevail during a reasonable
period in the future"
In making this declaration the
state indicated, without mentioning
the recent decision in the Georgia gas
rate case by the United States Supreme
Court, that it would make a strong
play in argument before the court for
the upset of the special masters re-
port on the ground that he used the
wrong set of prices. This decision
came two days after Mr.. Haight rem
dered his decision based on previous
decisions.
There are a number of parallel OBJ
iections. the state, for instance, de-
claring that where Mr.. Haight de-
Quoted 20 per cenA from the base
value for depreciation he should
have deducted more. The Public
Service. on the other hand. claims he
should not have deducted anything
CIR. if anything, the amount should
have been much less than 20 per cent.
The special master allowed $4,000
eGO as the v alue of the power CON
tract the company has with the Pub
lfc Service Electric Company, The
state claims no allowance should have
been made in a valuation for rate max
ing and the company claims
the allowances should have been more
than ss,000,000-
Franchise Value Complaint
Another item that has appeared
prominently before in the case is the
franchise value. The special master
upheld the state in not giving value
to this item. The company now claims
that the master erred in not including
an mount Of value in his appraisal
for this item.
When Mr.. Haight allowed $5,500,000
for going value, the company argues
that it should have been more and the
state says there should have been no
allowance.
The masters allowance of $s,59o,649
,or land, including right Of way, shoald
have been much larger, the company
' while the state claims that the
master erred in the methods he em-
ployed to arrive at that figure.
In addition to these differences, the
company claims the master should