Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-09-17
GAS COMPANIES
DROP OLD APPEALS
Action Following Offer of Re-
duced Rates Seen as
Good Will Gesture.

Counsel for the Washington Gas
Light Co. and the Georgetown Gas
Light Co today entered a dismissal of
their suit In District Supreme Court
appealing against valuations made of
their properties IA years ago. The
appeals have been dormant most of the
years, although in 1928 they had a
brief moment of revival before sinking
back into the limbo The figures in
volved in the old controversy are now
hopelessly out of date and the points
of law involved have been litigated and
settled many times over by local utili-
ties.
The action of the companies was
taken at the District Building as some
thing in the nature of gesture of good
will remotely connected with their
effort to build up new business here
by an offer to decrease rates. Hearings
on the offered reductions, which the
companies state amount to q cash re-
duction of 100000 year on its present
volume OF sales, are now in progress.
Appeals Taken In 1918.
The appeals which the company
abandoned today 60 back in their his
tory to the founding of the Public Util-
tiles Commission by act of Congress In
1913. The first action of the commits
sion was TO undertake valuation pro-
ceedings OF all the utilities under its
control. Before the task was finished
the war interrupted and considerably
heightened the work and the SubSe-
quent litigation. without exception the
large local utility companies believed
that they were worth more than the
figures arrived at by the commission
and went to court to prove it, Since
rates are under the law, supposed to be
based on valuation, the higher the val
uation OF utility company, the higher
rate 1t Is entitled to charge.
The main fighting round in these
early appeals was the theory of repro
duction cost, which the companies
claimed had been ignored by the COM
mission. One of the cases, that of the
Potomac Electric Power Co., wandered
up to the Supreme Court OF the United
states and back down by stages to the
District Supreme Court 1t was final
ly compromised. The gas companies
cases stayed in the District Supreme
Court.
Appeals Rest Years.
The commission, in its orders of Nav
2, 1917, found that the value of the
Washington Gas Light Co was SO ,097, :
1881 and that of the Georgetown Gas
Light Co. 1929. 1869. These were APP
pealed, but nothing was ever done about
the appeal for years.
In 1928 the gas companies came TO
the commission and asked for q revalu-
tlon. This was granted and q large
amount of work done by both sides on
the case. 1t came on for hearing and
the companies put on many engineers,
each testifying that the company was
worth more than 1t figured on the
MI q irVaf
the inquire considerably higher than the
last. Came the commissions engineers
turn and objections by the companies
TO the f1rst witness produced sent the
case back to the District Supreme
Court.
The witness Byars NICK. Bachman.
accountant for the commission, had
based his figures on an exhibit prepared
by an accountant employed in the first
valuation case, Andrew Sangster, then
In Scotland and not amenable to pro-
cess Of the commission. The companies
objected that this was hearsay testi-
mony, and that the facts tended to be
proved by Sangster's testimony had
never been admitted as final by the
companies. Ralph B. Fleharty, then
peoples counsel, moved that the COM
panies be compelled to go through with
their appeal in the court before further
pAOCCCQiAlB Nlbl bIlc case,
His motion was granted. The old case
was argued more than a year ago be-
fore Justice Peyton Gordon in District
Supreme Court. but no decision was
ever handed down.
New Valuation Likely.
The abandonment of this case leaves
the gas companies about the only major
utility concern not now in litigation
with the commission. AS to the inter-
rupted valuation, 1t is confidently ex-
pected that this also will be abandoned
and that q new valuation proceeding is
In prospect in the not too distant flu
ture. Since the old proceeding was
started there has been a change in
ownership of the company, accompa-
MED by a change in counsel, and the
present counsel are not familiar with
the facts in dispute in the old case.
Further than that, the commiSsion's
chief engineering witness, j. Carl Wolf,
recently took employment with a con-
Germ intimately associated with the
present owners of the gas company and
has notified the commission that he
will not be available as its witness
should the proceeding ever come up
again. This would leave the commits
sion virtually without case to present
without spending months in checking
over the facts found by Wolf with an
other enQiDearinp staff