Evening star., 1934-04-18
SEEKS TO PREVENT
UTILITY LITIGATION
William A. Roberts Urges
House Group to Approve
Norton Bill.

Citing specific cases in which pub
lie utility corporations had by litiga-
ton tied up orders of the Public Util-
titles Commission for nearly i3 years,
William A. Roberts, special counsel
for the commission, urged the Public
Utilities Subcommittee of the House
District Committee at hearing last
night to approve the Norton bill to
expedite and limit appeals from COM
mission orders
The longest case, involved in litiga-
ton for IL years, months and II
days, Roberts pointed out, concerned
the old Capital Traction Co. val,ia-
tion. He mentioned several other
cases which were in the courts for
seven and nine years, respectively.
Would Speed Appeals.
Roberts explained that the Norton
bill, which he prepared, would speed
up appeals when they reached the
courts. eliminate appeals from purely
administrative orders and limit ap-
peals in valuation cases to judicial
| issues. Other provisions in the bill
would give the commission jurisdic-
ton over depreciation rates of utili-
ties and assess the costs Of all sp-
peals on the utilities, excluding COM
mission expenses
Frequently under present law. Rob-
erts said, cases which have consumed
weeks Of testimony before the COM
mission are reheard by the court,
which does not have the facilities
for investigating and checking the
factual findings
Experiences of the last 20 years,
he added. have shown that the pres
ent form of appellate procedure has
resulted in undue and unreasonable
delays and has not kept pace with
the progress in administration law.
Aid to Valuation Cases.
Passage Of the bill. Roberts pointed
out, would greatly expedite valuation
cases, such as the pending valuation
Of the Washington Gas Light Co..
once the case reached the courts.
Utilities, he said, would no longer be
able to hold a retrial of the factual
issues which had consumed months
OF testimony before the commission.
ton of Citizens Associations indorsed
the Weideman bill, which is similar in
certain respects 10 the Norton meas
ure.. He explained the major differ
ences between the two bills. The
Weidemsn measure, he pointed out,
also would expedite litigation and as
sess the costs on the utilities, but it
would not change the depreciation
provisions Of existing law requiring
utility to maintain a depreciation
fund
The commission" Sullivan said. "is
functioning under a serious handicap
due to the interminable litigation in
the courts. II We are going to have
any attempted valuation of the utn-
tiles, we need such a bill
Opposes Both Measures.
The constitutionality Of the pro-
posed legislation was questioned by
George P. Hoover. counsel for the
Chesa peake & Potomac Telephone Co.
The Norton bill, he said. was more
acceptable TO constitutional facts than
the Weidman measure. However, he
declared he was opposed to both
measures.
Hoover also said that valuations of
utility corporations had proceeded
with as much dispatch as possible
under the circumstances. He empha-
sized, that justice and not speed was
the most important element.
Several briefs were filed with the
subcommittee by utilities counsel.
Richmond B. Keech. appointee to the
commission, and Sullivan also an
nounced their intention Of filing briefs.
Representative Black. Democrat, Of
New York. chairman OF the subcom-
mittee. announced at the conclusion
of the hearing that the major issue
involved is whether the bills are con-
stitutional