Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-10-07
HANNA EvAS|yE
ON MERGER VIEWS
Capital Traction Head Re.
fuses to Reply to Commits
Si0n'S Questions on Plan.


Of the Capital Traction Co. his opinion
a. 70 merits of plan of merging his
company with the Washington Rail-
way d Electric and Washington Rapid
Transit Cos. drawn up by the commits
sion some months ago, when hearing
ton was resumed.
The commission piled Mr.. Hanna
with every possible variation OF Ques-
lions on this theme, but he skillfully
evaded them. Toward the end of the
hearing he vent so far as to admit that
the commission. in framing the plan.
had attempted to be fair to all parties
concerned. but would not express an
opinion as to whether the attempt had
succeeded.
The questions on the merger have
been incorporated by the commission
into the car fare case over the objections
NJ the compa MES on the theory that
he petitioners, who are seeking financial
relief by increased car fares, should be
ready to discuss further methods Of
seeking the relief sought
Mr.. Hanna stated 1t was with great
regret he found himself unable to
answer the questions and that this was
the first time that a Capital Traction
official had ever found himself similarly
embarrassed before public utility
of1cial IN open hearings. but the ques-
ton left him no alternative, he said.
Refuses to Express Opinion.
Chairman Mason M. Patrick of the
commission, who did most of the ques-
tioning, had before him q Monograph
ed copy of the agreement and asked for
Mr.. Hannas opinion Of Its 20 para
graphs. one by one. Mr.. Hanna de-
elined TO give it. He was then asked
to consider each paragraph with rela-
ton to the whole, and also asked for
his opinion as a street railway operating
man. as an individual, and as an
official of the Capital Traction Co.
None of these forms Of questions
brought the desired answer.
At one stage OF the questioning
Hanna was directed to answer the
question, but even this was Ruthless.
George E. Hamilton. counsel for the
company, objected to the line OF ques-
lions which sought to draw from Mr.,
Hanna these opinions as an official
Of the Capital Traction Co. He said
no official could testify except upon
instruction of the company and that
Commissioner Harleigh H. Hartman
asked Mr.. Hanna If he would now
give the commission views which he
would express TO congressional COM
mittee should the commissions merger
plan give rise to hearings before COM
mittees. Mr.. Hanna declined.
Clash Marks Opening.
The commission and the Capital
er,,AA at ~ .1A ~ -
the hearing today. Chairman Patrick
announced the intention of the COM
mission to ask company onicials for
their opinion Of the new merger plan
proposed by the commission and asked
for statements from counsel for both
railway companies. G. Thomas Dunlop,
counsel for the Capital Traction Co,
and 8. r. Bowen, counsel for the Wash.
ington Railway 81 Electric Co., Doth
declared that they would stand on their
previous objections to the consideration
Of any merger proposal in connection
with the application of the companies
for an increased Carfare, as they be-
lieved the question OF merger Is not
properly part Of the fare increase case.
Ralph B. Fleharty peoples counsel,
said he had no statement TO make
further than to saw that in behalf Of
the people he was anxious to see q
merger brought about.
Chairman Patrick then called Presi-
dent Hanna of the Capital Traction
Co. to the stand. Mr.. Hanna took
position at the table next to Mr.. Dunlop
and throughout the examination the
president and counsel OF the company
were IN close consultation.
Asked first by Chairman Patrick for
his views regarding the financial f6I-
lures Of the commissions merger pro.
posal Mr.. Hanna said:
ANY merger plan must be considered
as a whole and any attempt to discuss
an individual part would be impossible
or impracticatle." He added that the
company had already settled its position
In q letter to the commission. in which
it held that the question of a merger
should not be brought up in connection
with the request for increased carfares.
The street car companies" he con-
tinued, cannot In justice to themselves
approve or disapprOve any particular
merger agreement until Congress makes
known what 1t wants put into such an
agreement"
With considerable emphasis Chair
man Patrick declared: The commission
feels that 1t is entitled to ask your
opinion Of the various features OF the
proposed merger agreement. This is
thought to be only fair to the commits
sion and the public"
answer such questions" firmly replied
Mr.. Hanna.
Evades Direct Questions.
Commissioner Hartman then endeav-
ored to extract Mr.. Hanna's opinion
Of the financial features Of the COM
missions merger plan by a series Of
questions. but Mr.. Hanna continued to
evade direct replies. Chairman Pat.
rick then declared that the commission
would take up the various sections Of
Its proposed merger plan and inquire
as to the company's views on each one,
whereupon Mr.. Hanna reiterated that
he would not answer such questions.
At length Chairman Patrick centered
Mr.. Hannas attention on q provision
Of the proposed agreement to the effect
that its approval by Congress shall
constitute and confer jurisdiction OIL
the Public Utilities Commission to issue
any order reasonably necessary to Sc
cure the operating or other economies
contemplated by this merger"
Mr.. Hanna said his company always
has believed that the commission
should have all necessary authority to
regulate the street railway companies
and that there should be nothing IN
any merger agreement to abridge the
commissions powers.
what will be your position II the
commission orders the company to an.
swer these questions?" demanded Mr..
Hartman.
Our position will be that the COM
mission has no authority to require
answers" replied Mr.. Dunlop.
so the company declines to answer
any question on this plan-refuses to
answer at the outset of this part Of the
hearing-does it?" asked Mr.. Hartman.
yes, that is right" interposed
George e. Hamilton, chairman of the