Evening star., 1923-01-13
Reply to His Criticism of Sug-
gested Abolition of Utili-
ties Commission.
REGARDED AS "REBUKE"
Northeast Association Says Reten.
tion of Board Is Waste of
Time and Money"

ter on utility matters to Col. Charles
Keller, chairman.
The communication is in reply to one
Col. Keller recently addressed to Evan
II. Tucker, president of the association.
in which he took issue with resolutions
adopted by the association on the ques-
tion of motor bus development and the
abolition of the commission.
In concluding his letter Col. Keller
that the commissioners do
not get the proper kind of cooperation
from the citizens
The letter sent today is from the
on utilities of the associa-
ton, headed by Roscoe Jenkins, and
starts out by explaining that the
views which prompted Col. keller's
letter were resolutions of the North
east Association and not Mr.. fuckers
personal opinions.
Extract From Letter.
The letter reads in part as follows:
I'm making this reply the COM
mittee is mindful OF the fact that the
resolutions of which you complain
were adopted by the association and
not by Mr.. Tucker, or at any insti-
cation or suggestion from him, and
is at loss to understand why he
should be rebuked for the action of
the association. This Is a democratic
organization and holds itself, and not
its president. responsible for action
taken in open session.
The committee also is mindful of
the fact that the members of this
association have resided in Wash
ington since before you became a
ma hnF Of D,Kh Tns
mission, some of them all their lives,
and are quite familiar with the con-
ditions surrounding the public utili-
ties of the District of Columbia both
prior to and since the enactment of
the public utilities law in 1913, and
congratulates you on having famil-
iarized yourself so thoroughly with
those conditions in the short duration
of your incumbency as Commits
Soner.
This association has members who
can remember when Congress char
tered the first street railway COM
pany in Washington, and in doing
so il took no cognizance of the fact
that the establishment of street rail-
ways would compete with the bus
lines then operating and, as you are
we'll aware, forced them TO discon-
tinue.
No Reason for Monopoly.
public utilities act or the existing
charters of the street railway COM
panies. whether they have any right
or can be given any right by the
Public Utilities Commission to law
fully operate bus lines and there can
be no good reason why a monopoly
should be given them. 1t would ap-
pear that any such policy, adopted
by the commission would be sub
servient to the street railway COM
panies"
Continuing. the committee declares
that very little trackage had been
added to the street railways during
the last twenty years; that the popu-
lation of the District and its envi-
rons has increased nearly 200 per
increased so per cent since the COM
mission took supervision, and that the
skip-stop system was thrust upon
the riding public"
Farther on the letter reads as fol-
lows:
The committee is also mindful of
the fact that the standard of gas
has been changed from light to
heat standard by the commission:
that the price was raised from rs
which it has since been reduced to
$1.05. which still makes an increase
of 40 per cent.
The committee is also mindful of
the fact that the Public Utilities Com
mission is virtually acting as the rs
cal managers of the public utilities
corporations, and thereby leaving the
companies free of responsibility to
manage their own properties et-
ficiently and economically; that IL is
an added responsibility, as you state
which is imposed upon the Commls-
sioners of the District OF Columbia,
and often of a disagreeable nature, for
which you get no thanks, and for
which the residents of the District or
Columbia are taxed and derive no ma
terial benefit. Therefore, this asso-
citation, in view of all the facts. be-
lieves it is a waste of time and money
to continue the existence of the com
mission.
Claim No such Statement Made.
"You question the correctness OF
the statement made in the resolution
adopted by this association that no
rates have been reduced by the Public
Utilities Commission If you will
carefully read the resolutions again
you will find no such statement made
therein. The statement you refer to
reads as follows: There is no appar-
ent improvement In the service pro-
vided by the public service corpora
tions or any material benefit in rates
been secured under the supervision
and regulation of the Public Utilities
Commission This statement, We ber
cannot be successfully contradicted.
'aThis committee is mindful of the
fact that the public service corporations
of the District of Columbia which are
founded on monopoly and special priv
ilege cannot be justly compared with
the ordinary retail mercantile enter
prises which are founded on Gompetf-
tion and which IL they succeed or fail
is no concern of yours or ours.
Addressing Public Servants.
"In conclusion this committee wishes
to state that this association is COM
posed OF members who are citizens of
the United States, residents and tax
payers Of the District of Columbia and
in communicating its grievances and
to the Public Utilities Com
mission and other officials of the Dis
trict of Columbia it is addressing the
public servants of the residents of the
District and not to private individuals,
and regrets that you should take per-
sonal offense at what is believed to be
not only the privilege but the duty of
every association Of citizens in the Dis
trict of Columbia,
"Mr. Tucker, the president of this
association, is in no way connected
with any public utility corporation
in the District of Columbia, financial
ly or otherwise, and only has the in
terest Of the welfare of the residents
OF the District In general, and Of the
northeast section IN particular, to
gain by the establishment OF bus lines
or other improved methods of trans
portation."