Evening star., 1928-12-17
GAS VALUATION
HEARING CLOSED
H
Next Action Waits Court De-
cision on Company's Ap- !.
peal From Order.

The valuation hearing of the Wash
1ngton Gas Light Co. was finally ad-
journed today by the Public Utilities
Commission until such time as the
District Supreme Court has passed upon
the company's appeal from the COM
missions valuation order of 1917.
Counsel on. the behalf of the COM
pany have expressed willingness, -
Swager Sherley. company attorney said.
upon the commission agreeing to an
order of reversal being entered in equity
case No, 353s0 in the District Supreme
Court to withdraw their objection TO ana
to permit the introduction as evidence in
this proceeding of the Sangster report
and testimony on historic value that is
part of the record of the previous hear
ing, and which report has been made
the basis for the report of Mr.. Bach
man. the accountant Of the commlS-
Son.
Meeting Subject Revealed.
This was the first intinlation of what
took place at the secret conferences be-
tween the parties in the proceedings.
Several have been held between De-
cenber 5, the date on which the near
ings were first ordered adjourned, and
today. The SangSter report referred TO
is a. report by Andrew SangSter. an ac-
countant employed by the commission
in the previous valuation proceedings
placing the cost of establishing the gas
light company from 1848 to 1914. The
present accountant for the commission,
to- ohyir@
on historic cost, examined the COM
nanvs books only since 1914 and ac-
cepted Mr. Sangster's figures up to that
date.
Attorneys for the company sought to
have all of Bachman's testimony
stricken from the record unless Mr..
Sangster could be produced in person
to testify to the historic cost as repre-
sented in his report Peoples Counsel
Ralph b. F1eharty opposed this by a
motion to compel the company to go
through with it's appeal in the District
Supreme Court before proceeding any
further in the present valuation.
Motion Is Sustained.
The commission sustained Fleharty's
motion on December 5.
"Since the announcement of that
ruling" Mr. Sherley said, 1--WE have had
a number of conferences with the COM
mission and its counsel looking to an
adjustment of the matters which led
to the ruling We have been unable,
however. to reach any understanding
satisfactory to all parties and regret
fully announce that we are unable to
acquiesce in these suggestions that have
been made on behalf of the commits
sion that We dismiss the case pending
in the Supreme Court of the District.
To do so would be to waive all rights
of the company to challenge the cor
rectneSs of the findings in the valuation
proceedings appealed from and to ad-
NIT their validity. The company is
forced, therefore, to seek as early de-
termination of that case as Is possible
and assumes that. pending such deter
nlination, the suspension. Of this pro-
ceeding will continue"
In justification of the company's POI
sition. Mr.. Sherley submitted a record
of the negotiations between the COM
mission and the company on valuation
going back to January 10, 1926, when
President Ord Preston of the company
wrote the commission pending an In
ventory of the companE's physical prop
erty. and asking That the same be
checked by the commissions engineers
in readiness for a valuation proceeding
at the earliest convenient date.
Saw Principles Ignored.
In his letter, Mr.. Preston claimed that
the valuation of his company's proper
ties made by the commission as of De-
cember 81, 1916. did not represent the
true value Of the property because the
principles established for the guidance
of the commission by the District Court
of Appeals in the Potomac Electric
Power case we're not followed. BY rea-
son of the erroneous valuation and of
the well recognized changes which had
taken place in cost of labor and ma
terials since the valuation, Mr.. Preston
wrote, the company was entitled to a,
new valuation.
The Public Utility Commission re-
piled on July Z, 1926, that there was
no money available for the valuation
work and that owing to the pending
change in personnel of the commission,
revaluation was considered inadvisable
On March g. 1927, the public utili-
ties act was amended so that the ex-
pense Of any valuation proceeding
would be borne In the first instance by
the utility affected. Immediately there
after. the commission started to work
on the valuation, and on July 2, 1928,
notice was given Of public hearings on
August IS.
Referring to Mr.. F1eharty's motion
which halted the proceedings, Mr.. Sher-
ley said: This motion and the Subse-
ouent action of the commission in sus-
tanning it came as complete surprise
to counsel for the company, as there
had been no intimation but what it was
agreeable to the commission and its
counsel that equity suit No. 35380 re-
main pending until such time as a
complete revaluation on the property
of the company should be had"