Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-08-19

sin the small increase which the street
railways are asking for, still we must re-
member that human nature Is human
nature and that large portion OF the
public would take the line when the
rate Is lower in the neighborhoods where
those lines are directly competitive. The
public of Washington has expressed
itself In favor of q uniform fare by re-
fusing to express any favor of the zone
system when we sought to institute 1t
few years ago as a means OF raising
increased revenue"
Offers Record of Old Hearing.
Mr.. Bowen offered a portion Of the
record Of the former hearing on the
Capital Traction Co.'S petition for an
increase in fare in 1928. MIR. Hartman
pointed out that much Of the record
which was offered was pure argument.
Mr.. Bowen admitted that this might be
so, but said that under the old COM
mission the rules Of practice were not
so strict and it would be hard indeed
to read the record and distinguish
carefully between narration Of fact and
argument.
Mr.. Hartman said if he allowed that
old record to go into the present case
in the shape in which it was offered 1t
would be equivalent to paying for print
ing the company's briefs. The matter
was settled by Mr.. Bowen Withholding
his offer until the commission had time
to examine the record and indicate
which portions of it were considered ar
gument and which portions considered
testimony.
Mr.. Ham then said that the valua-
ton, as found by the Public Utilities
Commission in 1914, Of the Washington
Railway & Electric md its subsidiary
companies, plus the costs of additions
and betterment to date, which the COM
pany sets out as its present fair yalua-
ton, must not be taken as any estimate
of what the company estimates Its value
to be.
Clayton Opposes Remarks.
Mr.. Clayton moved to strike Mr..
Hams remarks from the record and
also that portion Of the companys an
swer on which they were based.
"This." said Mr.. Clayton, sis d rate
case. We do not know what the words
Of this witness mean. Is he going to
come in here with some other valuation
than that set by the commission"
Mr.. Hartman said that the company
had a right to confront the commission
with any alleged valuation it chose and
that the witness remarks would only
go to the weight to be given the COM
missions estimate of valuation by the
company. Mr.. Clayton then withdrew
his motion, but said that he probably
would renew it at another time.
Fair" Value Is Shown.
Mr.. Ham next introduced two sta
tistical exhibits for the purpose Of show
ing the "fair" value Of the Washington
Railway & Electric Co. as of December
81, 1928, and explaining how it was
built up.
Commissioner Hartman asked counsel
to state whether it was intended that
these exhibits should be taken as proof
offered by the company Of its fair"
value. Mr.. Hartman and Mr.. Bowen
engaged in discussion of what the
real purpose Of the exhibits was. Finally
Mr.. Ham said that the figure of $19,-
210,890.39 was offered, as the mini
mum fair value"
isn't this figure developed in identi-
cally the same way that the Inter-
state Commerce Commission was taken
to task by the Supreme Court for using
in the "O'Fallon case? asked Mr..
Hartman. Mr.. Bowen explained that
in the absence of a valuation up to
date by the commission, the best evil
dence of present value was the COM
missions former valuation figure plus
the sworn statements Of the company
made since 1916.
But If the commission accepts this
figure" insisted Mr.. Hartman, would
it not be inviting the same criticism
that the Supreme Court administered
to the Interstate Commerce Commission
in the OFallon case?"
Sidesteps Answer.
Mr.. Bowen sidestepped q direct
answer to this question by saying that
the companys exhibits were the best
evidence now available.
The commission, MIR. Bowen said, is
empowered to make any attack on the
valuation found by itself on the COM
pany's property, and so Is every indi-
vidual, except those who have appealed
from the commissions finding. Mr..
Hartman said that the commission
could reopen that case at any time that
it detected error in 1t, and readjust the
findings accordingly.
Mr.. Bowen wound up the argument
by saying that the company was not
introducing evidence in this case as it
would in a valuation case. This ap-
peared TO satisfy Mr.. Hartman and re-
cess was taken for lunch.