Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-07-30
Traction Counsel Battles
VainIy to Introduce Any Part
OF Original Data.
VALUATION DECISION
is CENTER OF STORM
Commission Declines to Accept Ap.
peals Courts Figures, but Takes
Copy of Transcript.

A bitter fight between the Public
Utilities Commission and counsel for
the street railway companies as to the
admissability Of portions of the record
IN the case Of the Capital Traction
Co.'S first application for an in
crease in fare today marked the second
session OF the new fare hearing which
got under way yesterday.
The first application was dismissed
without prejudice to the company last
October. owing to the fact that legisla-
ton looking to merger of the street
railway lines was pending in Congress.
Childress' Letter Is Fight Center.
At the time the case was dismissed.
counsel Tor the commission and the car.
rlers entered into stipulation later re-
corded in letter from Chairman John
w. Ch1ldress to the company saying in
part:
You may use the record in this case
In any subsequent hearing for so much
as 1t may be worth"
This was the battle ground TODAY and
the array Of attorneys for the carriers.
by John s. Barbour, who
made his first appearance today in rep
resenting the Washington Railway 6
Electric Co.. battled for what they in
sisted was their right to read into this
The commission ruled, however, at
the end Of the verbal fireworks, in
favor OF the position of Corporation
Counsel William w. Bride, its legal ad-
wiser, who held that the stipulation
meant that the old record could be
used In the new case only in such
places as no proper objection to it
would lie by counsel for the commits
sion or for the people.
Dunlop Claims Contract Violation.
After the carriers had lost their fight,
G. Thomas Dunlop, who was the leader
In the argument, said that the commits
Slon'S ruling amounted to o plain vio-
lation "of the contract" between the
former commission and the company.
which prejudiced his companys rights.
But the proceeding went ahead.
The battle had turned particularly
on the admission of that portion Of
the old record which contained a copy
OF the decision of the District Court
of Appeals setting a valuation on the
Capital Traction Co. as Of January /,
1925. Although the commission de-
clined to accept this from the old rec
ord, 1t nevertheless later accepted q
copy Of the transcript Of the case, the
decision and Judgment therein, certi-
ned correct by the clerk of the Appeals
Court, making an exception in favor Of
the carriers from q rule previously an
nounced.
The rule was to the effect that no
matters OF which the commission took
judicial notice would be allowed to be
placed in the record. The commission
that it took judicial notice
of the decision of the Court of Appeals,
but, nevertheless, allowed the transcript
into the record.
Date Of Purchases Creates Fight.
Commissioner Harleigh H. Hartman,
after this point had been settled, pur-
sued his line Of inquiry into the ac-
QUESTION of property by the company
at various dates from 1914 to the pres
ent, over the objection of Mr. Dunlop,
who argued that, since the Court of
Appeals had spoken as to the value on
January !, 1925, the commission had no
right to go into the question of the
buying OF any property before that date.
At the end CT the morning session
the commission announced that all fur
ther sessions would be held in its regu-
lar nearing room on the nrSt nOOr OF
the District Building instead Of in the
board room on the fifth floor as here
tofore.
Valuation Battle Renewed.
The battle over admitting the valua-
ton Of the Capital Traction Co.'S prop
erty fixed by the District Court of Ap-
peals as Of January l, 1925, at $25,-
756, $50, as a part of the record In the
present hearing, was renewed as soon as
the hearing began this morning. Chair
man Patrick called upon Corporatiole
Counsel Bride to state his recollection
Of the conference held last Fall when
an agreement was reached regarding
the use of evidence in the former rate
hearing in any future case. It was in
the 1928 hearing that the courts VAL
uation was made part Of the record.
Mr.. Bride read a statement giving his
version Of the agreement reached at
that time with counsel for the Capital
Traction Co. He said it was understood
that the expression, available for use,"
meant that any part of the former rec
ord might be used at the present hear
ing, subject to challenge"
"It was not intended" declared Mr.
Bride, that either side should give up
any Of its legal rights"
George e. Hamilton, Capital Traction
Continued on Page 3. Column ~