Evening star., 1928-10-04
DENY PLEA AGAINST
CAR FARE INCREASE
Commission Refuses to Dis
miss Capital fractions
Application.

Acting on an opinion of Corporation
Counsel William w. Bride, the Public
Utilities Commission this afternoon
denied the motion of Peoples Counsel
Ralph B. Fleharty for dismissal of the
Capital Traction Co.'S application for
higher fare. The commission announc-
ed that 1t will now proceed to consider
the company's petition upon the record
In the case"
Brides opinion and the action Of the
commission in formally approving It
blasted the hopes Of those who saw
victory for the car riders in the motion
of the peoples counsel for dismissal OF
the increased fare petition on the
ground that the car company is not
poverty stricken and is therefore not
entitled to higher fare at this time
Confer Three Hours.
Bride however, held that the COM
mission could not be acting within its
legal powers If it dismissed the petition
merely because there was failure on
the part of the Capital Traction Co. to
show present urgent needs"
The commission announced its de-
cision at the close of a three-and-a-
half hour executive session, at which
Brides opinion in the car-fare-rate
case was considered in detail.
The announcement issued by the
commission follows:
"The Public Utilities Commission met
this morning and received the opinion
of its general counsel in response to the
questions asked of him under date of
September %, 1928. After careful con-
sideration of this written opinion, the
commission decided that 1t would deny
the motion of the peoples counsel for
dismissal of the petition of the Capital
Traction Co. for an increase in fare.
The commission will now proceed to
consider this petition upon the record
in the case"
Brides Opinion.
Brides opinion covers 10 pages OF
closely typewriter and is summarized
as follows.
stripped of all it's technicalities.
favorable action on the motion OF the
peoples counsel would bring merely a
short delay. If the motion to dismiss
is granted, new petition based upon
claim for fare fair return upon the
value as determined by the courts
rather than for lesser return on the
ground of present urgent needs would
undoubtedly be filed by the petitioner,
neceSsitating a further hearing upon
the case already presented. 1t would
serve no useful purpose; 1t would waste
valuable time. 1t might bring even
higher rate of car fare than that prayed
for in the present petition. 1t would
in no way serve to clarity the only
issue involved, which I take to be
merely whether or not the company Is
entitled to a fair return upon its value
as at present determined by the courts,
and. If It Is so determined that 1t Is
so entitled, at what rate that fair re-
turn should be fixed.
II am of the opinion, therefore. that
the proof of present urgent needs is
not an essential element In this pro-
ceeding. The real question involved,
and the only one with which the COM
mission is authorized to deal, is
whether the rate of fare prayed Tor
| would yield a return In excess OF a Just
| return on the value of the property
| IF it would, the commission Is not au-
thorized to grant it; If 1t would not, 1t
is the clear duty of the commission. to
comply with the request. The question
whether it would or would not SO yield
fair return Is for the commission 10
decide. and no view thereon from me
was either requested or is presented.
INV answer, then, is that the COM
mission would not be acting within It's
legal powers If it dimissed the petition
merely because there was fallure 20
show present urgent needs.