Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-06-13
Utilities Commission Evil
dence Attacked in District
Supreme Court.
PROPERTY RETALIATION
is DECLARED ILLEGAL
". R. & E. and Capital Traction
Co. Attorneys Demand Refused
Order Be Made Mandatory.

Written briefs finally summing up the
ease in favor of the 10-cent car fare
were filed by the Capital Traction Co.
and the Washington Railway g. Elec-
trio Co. with Justice Jennings Bailey
of District Supreme Court yesterday.
The court is asked to override the Pub
lie Utilities Commission and enter the
order which the commission refused to
do, raising Washingtons carfare to 10
cents cash, or four tokens for 80 cents.
Retaliation of the petitioners prop
srty before any change in the rates,
which is the method preferred by the
commission and the peoples counsel, Is
unnecessary, even illegal. according to
the brief of the Washington Railway 81
Electric Co., written by attorneys John
s. Barbour and S. Russell Bowen. They
cite numerous cases to show that last
minute inventory of the property OF a
utility seeking a higher rate is not
necessary where its evidence as to value
is uncontradicted, and they assert that
their evidence as to value Is virtually
admitted" by the commission. ConSid-
cradle space is devoted, however, to re-
butting assertions by lawyers for the
commission that there are errors in the
company's books, and that items are i'm
properly retained in the valuation &C
count. If the commission does not be-
lieve that the companyS value figures
are substantially correct, the brief holds,
q very cursory investigation would have
proved that to be the fact.
The type of proof which the company
submits now, the brief says, is the same
as that on which the commission itself
in 1922 puts its fares down.
ZeIinski, Witness, Criticized.
The brief criticizes one witness by
the name of ZelinSki, who was called
to the stand by Peoples Counsel Rich
mond B. Keech to testify that the COM
panies had not taken of enough de-
probation from the value Of their prop
erty. The witness did not show that
he had made an examination of the
property for a present reproduction
value, but merely pretended to state
that he had examined certain ways and
rolling stock, without particularizing, it
Is pointed out.
The brief also suggests that instead
of decreasing the value of the utility,
because in the course of the year its
property depreciates, the value should
be increased, because in well managed
utilities the property appreciates.
The brief Of the Capital Traction
Co.. written by attorneys George z.
Hamilton and G. Thomas Dunlop, dis
misses ZelinSky with a statement that
the Court of Appeals has settled the
question Of depreciation as to that
company.
Charges Unfair Penalty.
It attacks the commission on the
ground that the commissions original
valuation of the property. together with
the periodical financial and property
reports made to it by the company,
are OF themselves a continuing physi-
cal inventory of the plaintiffs property.
For the commission to say there Is no
such inventory is simply to say that
1t does not agree with its predeces-
sors in office or at best that its prede-
cesSors have not discharged their duty
to the public by keeping the records
in reliable shape and up to date it
says. Now the commission is seeking
TO penalize the company for its own
breaches of duty it adds.
The commission is also accused of
supporting its case before the court
by wringing certain extracts of testi-
mony away from their proper contextS,
and leaving the court with the wrong
impression of what the companys wit
neSSes actually said.
Both companies maintain that their
property is being conflscated by the
present fares.