Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-03-01
FEDERATION FAILS
TO DECIDE FUTURE
Of ADVISORY BODY
Existence for Year Assured
to Citizens Council by
Action Delay.
OPTION FOR CHILDREN
ON CASH FARE ASKED
Motion to Indorse Light Rates
Sliding Scale Is Lost After
Discussion.
The special meeting OF the Federation

The special meeting of the Federation
of Citizens Associations last night,
called TO discuss the future of the
Citizens Advisory Council, failed to act
on the matter and thus assured the ex-
istence of the council for another year.
Elections of council members will be
held in April.
A report had been submitted by a
special committee, headed by E. S.
Hege, on the wisdom and desirability
Of continuing the council, in which 1t
was recommended that action be de-
layed until next December. The fed
GRAFTON struggled with the report and
with a substitute motion of j. Lewis
Goldman, Congress Heights, to abolish
the council forthwith.
Many points of order were made
against the substitute motion. James
q. Yaden of Petworth made the point
that TO abolish the council would be to
amend its constitution, and that an
amendment could not be sustained
without two-thirds vote. President
George G. Havenner ruled otherwise,
but on an appeal from the ruling Mr..
Yaden was sustained, 81 to rs. After
much debate, the whole matter was
laid on the table on motion of George
u. Sullivan OF Takoma Park.
The federation voted in favor of al
lowing school children the option Of
paying a Scent cash fare for their rides
on the street cars and buses under the
reduced fare law or of buying strips Of
tickets proposed to be sold by the car
and bus companies. Several delegates
spoke in opposition to requiring the
children to identify themselves as school
children by the production of identifi-
cation cards, although no action was
taken on the question.
William NICK. Clayton. chairman of
Che Public Utilities Committee, intro
duced a resolution indorsing the prin-
ciple of adjusting electric light rates by
q sliding scale method under the con-
sent decree Of Equity Court. The reso-
luton said that certain notifications.
adjustments and changes are necessary
more fully to protect the interests of
users Of electricity, and that such
changes should be effected without
denying the company fair, just, and
even liberal rate Of return on its prop
ertv investment
The report suggested certain Changes
in the depreciation scale set up In the
consent decree. One OF the paragraphs
of the report read: THE committee be-
lieves that the higher interests OF both
consumers and company would best be
conserved by an avoidance of an appeal
to court. and the committee urges that
every legitimate and permissible effort
be put forth by both commission and
company to avoid an appeal TO the
courts"
Question Wrangled.
This paragraph caused a frenzied
discussion. There were those, led by
George E Sullivan and Harry /. Quenn,
who held that this paragraph was the
very reverse of an action taken re-
Gently by the federation in support of
the position of Peoples Counsel Rich
mond B. Keech, who favors an absolute
abrogation Of the decree, as beyond the
jurisdiction OF the court to make In the
first instance.
Another group, led by Mr.. Clayton,
was anxious to preserve the method
under the consent decree, and was
unwilling TO go TO valuation with its
delays and postponement Of rate re-
auctions while the commission would
be securing the data on which TO build
a rate schedule IL It decided to take
the rate-f1xing out Of the hands of the
court. MIR. Sullivan wanted to substi-
tute for the whole report q resolution
that the federation indorse the stand
Of the peoples counsel In the matter.
After an imprisoned appeal by Mr..
Clayton, the federation voted the sub
stitute down, % 20 %, but later struck
out the paragraph from Mr.. Clayton's
report which had given rise TO Mr..
Sullivan's original objection. Mr.. Sui
Ivan next wanted 10 strike from the
report the word liberal" so that the
federation would be committed to favor
Ing for the company only a fair and
Just" but not liberal" return on its
valuation. DR.. Havenner objected TO the
consideration Of this motion, and since
II came up under unanimous consent,
1t lost. DR.. Hayenner later moved to
reconsider the matter, but his motion
was laid on the table.