Evening star., 1929-11-15
Future Course of w. R. E. in
Rate Increase Proceed
ingS Up to Board.
RIVAL COMPANY MADE
PARTY BY COMMISSION
Hanna Announces Action Has Been
Left Entirely to Legal
staff.

The Capital Traction Co. may have
to wage an independent fight in the
courts for the higher fare denied by
the Public Utilities Commission, as
there were strong indications today
that the Washington Railway g. Electric
Co. may not join in the legal proceed
ings.
Officials of the Washington Railway
& Electric Co. however, declined TO
comment on the latest move of the
rival company, or to intimate whether
similar action is contemplated, pointing
out that the future course would be de-
termined by the board of directors, who
are to meet Wednesday afternoon in
regular session. The directors un-
doubtedly will consider the commissions
formal opinion denying the fare raise,
it was said, although there are no posi-
tive indications that any plans would
be made to renew efforts for the in
crease.
Made Party by Commission.
The Washington Railway g. Electric
Co, it was pointed out, did not make
application on It's own initiative for a
higher fare, but was made a party to
the Capital Traction Co.'s petition by
the commission For this reason there
is said to be a feeling that the COM
pany would be placed in the position
OF being inconsistent If 1t now joined
its rival in carrying the battle into the
courts.
The form the Capital Traction Co.'S
legal action for financial relief will take
has not yet been definitely determined,
according to John H. Hanna, presi-
dent. This question has been left en-
tirely to the company'S legal staff, head
ed by G. Thomas Dunlop.
Dunlop said he is studying carefully
the 3,000-word opinion of the Commits
sion preparatory to deciding on the form
of the appeal, but he would not hazard
a prediction as to when it likely would
be filed. 1t is expected, however, that
it will be week or longer before It is
ready.
Intimate Bill in Equity.
The appeal, it was intimated, may be
in the form of bill in equity, and uT-
doubtedly will be accompanied by re-
quest for a temporary order increasing
fares pending flnal settlement of the
court fight over the decision.
A similar situation arose several years
ago when temporary order was issued
by the courts restraining the commits
sion from reducing rates OF the Po-
tomac Electro Power Co. In this case,
however, the court ordered the COM
pany to impound the difference between
the rates it collected and the rates
prescribed by the commission pend
ing settlement of the case.
It is prohlematical whether tempo
rary fare increase order would con-
tain an impounding proviso, since this
question is discretionary with the court.
Moreover, 1t would be an involved pro-
cedure since the company would flnd 1t
difficult to return the extra fare COL
lected to its riders If the courts deci-
sion in the fare case should be adverse.
Utility experts agree that the sue
cess of the company's effort in the
courts will hinge on the question of
valuation, which the commission held
in its order refusing fare increase,
is not current, and therefore does not
furnish a satisfactory basis for de-
termining a fair rate of return The
company, however, contends that its
valuation is adequate to show that the
present rate of return is not fair and
therefore confiscatory is continued in
effect by force.