The Washington times., 1926-02-04


The proceedings before the Mary
land Public Service Commission
were brought unfier the section OF
the, law creating the washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission,
which empowered the public service
commission to determine the reason
ableness of assessment, tax levies or
service charges. complaints having
been made by certain property
owners affected.
Hearings were had before the
Public Service Commission last
October, at which time it appeared
to the Public Service Commission
that the matter involved primarily
legal question and at the con-
clusion of the hearing the entire
matter therefore was submitted by
the Maryland Public Service Com
mission to the attorney general Of
the State for an advisory opinion.
Difference OF Opinion
The Washington Suburban SAM
tary Commission has contended
Throughout the proceeding that the
jurisdiction Of the Maryland Public
Service Commission did not extend
to the question Of legality OF the
rates but merely to the question Of
reasonableness Of the increases.
On behalf of the compliments,
however, it was commended that
although the rates might be enA
tirely reasonable, having in mind
the annual requirements OF the
Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission to pay the interest and
retire It's bonds which have been
issued and sold from time to time,
that nevertheless the Public Serv-
ice Commission of Maryland had
right to determine the legality
Of the increase.
1t was practically admitted at the
time of the hearing that the in
creased revenues were needed, but
1t was contended that instead OF
increasing the front foot charges,
the general tax rate throughout the
sanitary area should have been in
creased. It was demonstrated,
however, that had this course been
followed by the Sanitary Commits
sion. the charge would have fallen
much more heavily on the home
owner throughout the sanitary
area than was the case under the
course adopted by the Sanitary
Commission.
In disposing Of the matter the
Attorney General advised the Public
Service Commission Of Maryland
that at is not for your commission
to pass upon the authority Of the
Sanitary Commission to raise the
front foot charge from 10 cents to-
13 cents. but merely to decide upon
the reasonableness of the new
rate"
Powers Are Different
al al ~
| out that the Sanitary Commission
ais the executory body with power
and authority to fix and establish
rates and charges while your COM
mission has merely the power and
authority to determine whether or
not they are reasonable" The At
| torney General adds, "the two
powers are quite distinct"
Following the same reasoning,
the Attorney General advises the
Public Service Commission that 1t
is not within their jurisdiction 70
pass upon the legality of the
service connection charges or to
review questions of classification OF
Attorney Generals opinion, is vested
finally in the Washington Suburban
| Sanitary Commission.
The Public Service Commission
| of Maryland has not announced
what further steps will be taken
by it in the pending matter. in view
! Of the opinion of the Attorney Gen
eraI of the State.
Text of Opinion
The opinion of the Attorney Gen
eral in full, is as follows:
ut appears to Us that there is
only one question before US at the
present time, and that is, what is
the scope of the Jurisdiction OF
your commission in regard to ap-
peals from the rulings Of the SAM
tary Commission. Your commission
as well as the Sanitary Commission
i is creation OF statute, and, there
fore, not only are its powers
limited to those specifically granted
| by statute, but these statutes them
selves must be strictly construed
| The only authority giving iurisdic-
| ton to your commission in the pres.
ent caset is found in section 90 of
chapter 122 of the laws of 1918 che
chapter creating the Sanitary Com.
rntssion). and is confirmed within
the following:
"The Public Service Commission
q.