Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-21
TRACTION FIRMS
WIN FIRST POINT.
Justice Wheat Denies Motion
of Commission to Dismiss
Appeal From Order.
0continued Prom First pare.l

utHNESnCeS DSIW6Cn the new pSEmlSSlVt
legislation under consideration and this
earlier merger proposal which had beer
submitted and approved by q majority
of the stockholders of the two COM
panieS before it came to Congress
whereas in the new form it has not
been submitted for approval by tha
stockholders.
Vice Chairman Hartman of the Pub.
lie Utilities Commission said that the
statement as made by the attorney fol
the companies does not represent either
the written or spoken wishes of thu
commission. we do not and have moi
suggested" he said, and the bill be-
fore you does not seek to deprive the
court of its independent judgment
Even If such was the intention of tbs
commission, 1t would be construed by
the courts as unconstitutional, and the
companies would not lose any of then
constitutional rights"
Mr.. Hartman, in answering the first
objection of the street railways, said
that the pending measure was not
drawn to enact an agreement already
made, but it was drawn to become eff
fective when the agreement is made
and to save Congress doing the work
over twice. He explained that this
measure tells the company what Con-
gress will do If the companies agree to
merge.
The hearing was adjourned subject to
the call Of Chairman Mcleod.
File Letter Of Objection.
While the traction case was before
the House committee and the courts, Of
f1eials of the two lines fled with Chair
man Capper of the Senate District COM
mittee joint letter, objecting to several
features of the merger legislation, par
- -.
tiles law in order to outline new syS-
tenn of procedure to be followed when
decisions of the commission are APP
pealed to the court.
The companies also urge the striking
out of the clause which would require
continuation of the present rates Of
fare for two years from the date Of
merger.
The companies inclosed also q copy
of letter they sent to the Utilities
Commission recently. giving the COM
mission some Of their objections to the
present merger resolution.
The letter came to Senator Capper on
the eve Of the public hearing to be held
by the Senate committee in Room 2l2
OF the Senate Once Building at Q
o'clock tomorrow night.
I'VE ask that II changes in the fun
.damenta1 law with respect 20 court re-
views are to be considered, they be ini-
tiated by q separate bill designed there
for" the companies told Senator Cap
per.
Asked Higher Fares.
I'VE also believe that the provisions
with respect to the continuance of
present rates of fare for q period of
two years should be eliminated and
that this matter should be left to be
regulated according to existing law
and to meet changed and chang
ing conditions. Since the original
measure (referring to the resolution
of the last CongreSs) was introduced
in Congress, both companies have been
before the commission requesting an
increase in the existing rates of fare,
for the reason that said existing rates
are confscatory, in that they are now
Yielding less than . fair return upon
the present fair values of their respec-
tive properties. The question Of the
ccn6scatory character OF the existing
rates Is now pending before the SUI
prefae Court OF the District for deter
ulination.
"Manifestly the companies could not
properly make any agreement which
would deprive their stockholders of their
constitutional right to a fair return.
Moreover, it is thought that 1t would
not be the desire Of Congress to enact
any legislation which would cripple or
hamper the new company in its opera
ton and in performing its obligation to
adequately serve the public or that
would affect its ability to attract to the
enterprise the necessary new capital
which an effective merger would de-
mand."
The companies ask that paragraph
of the pending plan, which outlines how
future stock issues would be authorized,
should be enlarged to permit the is
suance Of additional bonds or other Sc
curities IS well as stock, subject to the
approval of the commission. In this
same connection, they recommend a
change in paragraph IL to provide In q
similar manner for alteration of cap
ttalization from time to time.
Want Merger.
In the letter which they wrote to
the Utilities Commission recently, John
II. Hanna, president of the Capital
Traction, and william F. Ham, preSi-
dent of the Washington Railway g.
Electric system. declared the two COM
panies ARE still anxious to bring about
a fair and equitable merger"
However. it should be definitely I'M
derstood that If this legislation should
contain provisions and conditions in
question, 1t would be impossible for the
street railway companies to proceed I'M
der the terms of such enabling act,
Furthermore, the incorporation Of the
Objectionable provisions in the proposed
legislation would invite opposition from
other utilities and others concerned.
who would recognize the unreasonable
ness and the unlawful character of the
proposed limitation upon the rights Of
judicial review"
In analyzing that part of the merger
plan, which seeks to rewrite the present
utilities law on the subject of how to
proceed in appealing to the court, the
companies say that the proposed
changes in the law would curtail the
rights OF the public as well as of the
railway companies.
Would Impair Rights.
Such amendments" the letter con-
tinued, IF enacted, would, 1t is clear,
take away all proper and reasonable op-
Rortunity for judicial review OF orders
~ the commissions and substitute in
seu thereof a scheme Of review which
would impair constitutional rights of all
interested parties to q fair opportunity
Tor submitting the issues involved to 6
judicial tribunal for determination upon
its own independent Judgment as 20
both Law and fact which is guaran-
teed to them in order that there may
be due process of law as provided by
the fifth amendment to the Constitution
Of the United States"
To support Of their arguments that
judicial review is not an empty right"
i in utility cases, the companies point out
that in the past consumers have gone
! into the court seeking \ review Of Or
derS OF the commission:
The proposed amendments to the
present utilities law dealing with the
method of court procedure in appealing
from actions of the commission were