Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-07-31

Heberle will have 70 do this excaya-
ton work from our records, with the
help of the engineering department..
'"This will be very big job. In
this hot weather we do not expect ito
work at night. on Saturdays and
Sundays, when the commission Is not
meeting, we will undertake. the task.
We will answer the questions and put
the answers In the record all Ut the
same time"
Hanna Aids Hebcrle.
Commissioner Hartman at yester-
day afternoons session. went into the
accounting system Of the Capital Trac-
ton Co. In an effort to learn how the
company's valuation figure was made
up While Mr.. Heberle was technically
on the witness stand, 1t was agreed tnas
MFR. Hanna. who Is under oath, should
assist in answering the questions.
In response to questions Mr.. Hanna
said the Grace street power house was
included in the valuation total at $l4O,-
600. although its assessed value was
$4,000 and the company had sought
to have the assessment reduced TO
$4,000.
@. Thomas Dunlop declared tnat
dence" in establishing the actual value
Of property in the District.
Mr.. Hanna declared that assessed
value had nothing to do with the value
of the property for rate-making pur-
poses. 1t was developed that the power
house is no longer in use as such, out
is used partly as storehouse and that
a part Of it has been rented to q paper
company.
Age Of Equipment Sought.
MANY questions were asked by Hart
man to bring out the age OF buildings,
tracks, cars and buses Of the COM
pany. MI. Hanna gave the dates when
the various stretches Of track were
built originally and when they were
renewed last. The same information
was given with respect to many OF the
buildings.
Mi Hanna said the average age of
the company's buses was two years
and four months. He admitted that
the age of two of the busSeS purchased
from another company was computed
from the time they came into the pos
session of the Capital Traction Co. The
remainder of the company's "a buses
were practically new today, he said.
When Mr.. Hartman launched into
q series of questions about the types
OF Jokes and joints used in laying
the companys tracks, Mr.. Dunlop de-
manded to know the purpose OF these
and similar questions.
THAT will be developed later" said
Mr.. Hartman.
"Then I object to them now" said
Mr.. Dunlop.
well, the present purpose is to show
the specific types of property to which
the company has attached a 1928
value" said Commissioner Hartman.
Dunlop Continues TO Object.
1T still object" declared Mr.. Dun
lop, unless 1t is intended to show how
these questions and answers can af1ect
the companys valuation for rate-mak-
ing purposes"
Chairman Patrick overruled the
objection and an exception was noted
by Mr.. Dunlop.
When Mr.. Hartman began to ask
questions about the cost Of new roof
on part of the Navy Yard car barn,
suggesting that an explanation should
be given as to the way this cost was
carried on the company's books, Mr..
Hanna showed resentment.
I'VE have kept our books and records
in conformity with the instructions
given us by the commission in the
past" said Mr. Hanna with consider
able heat. Jobs that cost consider
able sums were entered as capital &C
count, rather than charged to main
tenance. We have done this because
we believed 1t to be the proper way
and because 1t was suggested by the
commission"
Mr.. Hartman asked number Of
questions designed to show that the
cost of many small jobs had been i'm
properly charged. He cited one item
of SIT and an addition of Sc to the
capital account for bus license plates.
Hanna Clashes With Hartman.
The sum of all these items would
make very little difference, declared
Mr.. Hanna, either in increasing or de-
creasing the total value Of the COM
pany's property.
These little mistakes" he added,
were not intended to boost valuation.
If we had wanted to do that we would
have picked larger items"
We'll give you full credit for that"
answered Mr.. Hartman.
Mr.. Hartman also developed that
since January l, 1925, the company has
entered the costs of all new consS>uc-
ton and other capital additions to its
capital account at actual cost. rather
than at reproduction cost. The COM
pany, in its valuation case before the
District Court of Appeals, had con-
tended strongly in favor of assessing
such items for valuation purposes at
the reproduction" cost-that is, the
cost 10 rebuild the property anew as
Of the date of valuation sought. Mr..
Dunlop exploited this by saving that
since 1925. there has been little change
in price Levels. and that the difference
between the reproduction cost of an
item of property on December 81, 1928,
and the actual cost of the item at any
time between January /, 1925. Is neg
ligible.