Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-09-17

been making go to 10 per cent on
what its fair value should be, and this
year it is making over 10 per cent" he
declared
wasn't that arranged by a decree OF
court?" Gen. Patrick asked
oh yes" said Mr. Clayton, they
went to court and asked them to do
that and the commission agreed to it
and that's what the court is there for,
to carry out agreements made by It'll
gants The people were never let in on
that agreement until after it had been
done.
And then there is the case of the Po-
tomac 81 Chesapeake Telephone Co. That
company did not want a valuation, so
it came to the commission with an
other of these compromises and we had
a small reduction in rates, which will
have expired two years next June. The
commission has done nothing about
that. These are your two compromises.
That is the policy OF Mr.. Commissioner
Hartman"
Hartman Resents Assertion.
"Just a minute-strike that from the
record" fiared Mr. Hartman. THE two
illustrations you used are not in point.
There is nothing to show that the policy
of Mr.. Commissioner Hartman Is the
policy of compromise. The company
here wants no compromise. 1t comes in
with schedule of rates which 1t asks
us to approve. Unless there Is something
you can show that would prevent ac-
cepting these rates. your motion must
be dismissed. Have you any such facts?"
II have nothing to add" said Mr..
Clayton, and took his seat.
Wilton J. Lambert, counsel for the
gas company. then arose and said that
his client desired to put no obstacles
in the way of a valuation when 1t can
whipped from his pocket an order
signed by him, dismissing his COM
panys appeal against the valuation of
its property announced by the commits
sion in 1917. The order has not yet,
however, been presented to court.
Mayer Supports Clayton.
Charles c. Mayer rose to support Mr..
Claytons motion to dismiss and also
the motion FOR revaluation. The COM
mission then took time out to consider
the motion Gen Patrick announced
that the motions had both been dis
missed for reasons previously on the
record.
President George A. @. Wood Of the
company then took the stand and read
a short preliminary statement, in
which he said that under the schedule
about to be introduced the poor con-
sumner would be benefited. He said that
65 per cent of the gas bills in Southwest
Washington would be reduced under the
proposed schedule, whereas only 80 per
cent Of the bills in the Northwest CEN
trail apartment section would be re-
duced He said that the apartment
dwellers use gas as a convenience, that
they do not use enough under the
present schedule TO pay their way, and
that they are a burden on other con-
sumers. He read list Of ID cities in
all of which the rate to the average
consumer is higher than in Washing
ton, except in the case OF Detroit.
Engineer Commissioner John G. Got
walls asked for comparative rates in
cities such as Louisville and Cincinnati.
Mr. Wood replied that the rates given
for New York, Boston. Philadelphia and
Baltimore were strictly comparable to
those in Washington, more so than
those In Louisville and Cincinnati ow-
ing to the difference in freight rates on
gas coal
Donald A. Henry was the next wit
ness. He is the rate engineer for the
Seaboard Investment Trust, which Is
the business name OF the persons who
now hold control OF the Washington
Gas Light Co. He made a lengthy
statement of his qualifications and then
said that under the rates proposed,
which he had drafted, assuming that
the business of the company grew ~
per cent in 1881, 1t would lose 1894, 900
IN revenue. If the business stands Still
it will lose 1866 900.
Introduces Series Of Rules.
He then introduced a series of new
rules which he asked the commission
10 enact at the same time that 1t en-
acted the new schedule. According 10
rule of the new draft, in the case
where any consumers service has been
disconnected because he would not pay
his bills, before 1t Is reconnected the
consumer must pay all OF his past bills
due, plus the cost to the company Of
disconnectlng the service, plus the cost
OF recommending it. The latter two costs
IN no case should aggregate more than
81. He described this rule as absolutely
necessary without giving any particu-
lars. Another section of this rule SUBJ
stitutes 10 days for the Is days dis
count period now allowed by the COM
pany His reason for this was that 10
days was enough time TO give anybody
to pay his bill and that 10 DAYS Is the
almost universally recognized discount
period.
Another new charge was found In
rule II. According TO this rule if any
consumer terminates his contract with
the company at any time within one
year after he takes services, he mus
pay the company $3.50 for the privilege
OF not continuing 10 use the gas durinl
ho1apaa If vaap rrhfs r,tls