The Penn's Grove record., 1923-07-06
Public Service Files Exceptions in
Federal Court, Following Action
by State and Municipalities.
CALLS vALUATloN TOO LOW
Attack by Both Sides Along Lines
Similar to Points Raised in Past
Decision Rendered After Masters
Finding Basis Of Exceptions.

900 fixed by Special Master Thomas G..
Haight in the rate case 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 company'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
lowance 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
ven 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 municipali-
ties protested others on the ground
that 1t made the value higher than 1t
really should be.
From a reading of the exceptions
filed with the court In Trenton 1t
would appear that both sides are sat
is1ed 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 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.
The state claims that the special
master erred fundamentally by de-
claring that the costs of material, la
Dor and equipment have become sta
Ul6 anu uOIIIdl, lueIeUy mdhluS Lie
value at present day prices a fair one
The state declares that these prices
are abnormal and would materially
decline in a reasonable period and
that therefore it was not fair to fix
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
i~ections, the state, for instance, de-
claring that where Mr.. Haight de-
Quoted 20 per cent from the base
value for depreciation he . should
have deducted more. h Public
Service, on the other hand, claims he
should not have deducted anything
or, if anything, the amount should
have been much less than 20 per cent.
The special master allowed $S,000,-
900 as the v alue of the power con-
tract the company has with the Pub
lie Service Electric Company. The
state claims no allowance should have
been made in a valuation for rate max
ing purposes, and the company claims
the allowance should have been more
than $4,000
Franchise Value Complaint
Another item that has appeared
prominently before in he case is he
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 his item.
When Mr.. Haight allowed $500 900
for going value, the company argues
that it should have been more n the
state says there should have been no
allowance.
The masters allowance of S9,590, 649
!or land, including right of way, should
nave been much larger, the company
says. while the state claims that the
master erred in the methods he en-
ployed to arrive at hat figure.
In addition to these differences, the
company claims the master should
ave made an allowance of $1,000, 600
for additional depreciation which the
company claims it suffered because