Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1924-02-12
.ASSA|LS VALUATION
PLACED ON PEPC0
Attorney Cites Washington
Market Decision to Sustain
F.. Plea for Increase.

The recent decision of the Dis
/trict Court Sof Appeals in valuints
no plant of the Washington Market
iorney John s. Barbour as sustain
ing his contentious before Justice
Stafford in Equity Division for a
higher valuation of the property OF
The Potomac Electric Power Com
any. In the market case the ap-
,,ellate court increased by more than
100000 the figures arrived at by a
majority of a condemnation commits
sion.
This decision, the lawyer asserted,
Is determinative of a number of points
nd also determined that allowances
= hich the Public Utilities Commission
had excluded in the Pepco case should
properly be included in the revalua-
Ton which the court is about to make
Concludes Arguments.
AIR. Barbour. concluded the argu-
tIents in the case and Justice Stafford
look the question of reyaluation I'M
Ter consideration.
The lawyer for thev company went
into the merits both of the historical
Ind of the reproduction estimates as
made by the commission, and pointed
out various alleged errors made on
ant, particularly in eliminating from
Lhe plant account $277,000 of physical
property purchased from the Potomac
Electric Light and Power Company
in 1896, and s1,977,150.63 eliminated
from the costs of the United States
Electric Light and Power Company
which the Public Utilities Commission
said represented only the value of the
franchises.
Mr. Barbour insisted, and cited ex-
70 rnf 70
.Iort his contention that this $751;
1908 represented additions to and
improvements in the physical prop
rites of the United States Electric
Light and Power Company and it's
entire bushes as a going concern.
He likewise quoted from the tran
script ito show that the commission's
own experts had testified that the
$4,000 eliminated by the commission
from the, plant account as being a
promoters fees Were proper and legiti-
mate expenses, as to which there
could be no criticism aud which
should be continued in the plant &C
counts of the company, quoting spc-
director of the commissions valua-
ton bureau to sustain the propriety
of this item.
Historical Costs.
Mr.. Barbour also asserted that Mr..
Sangster's ascertainment of historical
costs was not in accordance with the
books and could not be reconciled
with any statements taken from the
books, and was, in fact, the result OF
lack of acquaintance on the part of
the accountant with the Technology
of the business and with the TRANSACT
tionS to which the original entries
referred, quoting at length from the
evidence to sustain his contentious.
He also showed by citations from
the record that MIR. Pillsbury. the
commissions engineer, had stated
that cost of reproduction, as eStimat-
ed by him. under normal conditions;
would always he less than the actual
cost of such property as this. owing
to piecemeal construction in actual
practice and the wholesale methods
Of calculation for reproduction, and
yet he showed that Pillsbury's re-
production tcosts of physical items
only exceeded by more than s2,O00,0O0
tho historical costs as reported by
Mr.. Sangster. contending that this
showed that Sangsters ascertainment
of original costs was wholly I'M
trustworthy"
Taking up the question of repro
duction costs OF the Potomac Elec-
trio Light and Power Company as of
July I. 1916, the attorney argued
were but s2,50o.oo0. or % per cent
In excess of those arrived at by Mr..
Pillsbury as being the costs two
years prior thereto, whereas the I'M
contradicted evidence of all of the
witnesses who testified on the sub
ject was that property costs had
advanced much more than that dur
ing that period, and that Mr.. Pills
bury had testified that the physicNl
property of the company could be
torn up and sold for scrap at the
time he testified in 1916 for more
than he had estimated as the repro
duction costs of the same property.
He insisted that under the facts
in this case and under the law the
reproduction cost as of July J., 1916,
Was the only safs criterion Of value
worthy of consideration by the court,
and that if this were followed and
due effect given to the same the
value arrived at by the court could
not be less than that estimated by
Mr.. Almert as the reproduction value.