The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-04-23

the maintenance of the present hap
expensive methods.
Nothing sould be farther from
the truth than the notion that the
perpetual conflict between the So
called public utilities" and the
public is due to the efforts of the
public to impose unfair burdens
upon the utility from political or
other Interior motives. No branch
of public or privat investment has
been so jealousy guarded by law
and the exercises of governmental
influences and governmental agen-
cies, as the public utilities Of the
country.
Utility Investors Favored
This is true to such an extent
that investors in utilities, now con-
stitute a specially favored class, the
only class of investors for the pro-
lection of whose investments a
piece of governmental mechanism
has been set up in every state and
at the nations capital, which never
ceases to function at their behest.
A public utility has nothing to
sell and nothing from which rev.
enue can be obtained except service.
The public interest is in the service,
the interest of the utility is in the
rates to be charged for it. That
the investor in its securities, acting
through it's officers as its agent,
has not hesitated to set this gov
eminent machinery in motion
upon every conceivable excuse for
the purpose of increasing rates is
shown by the fact that almost every
controversy between the public and
the utility relates to rates.
Law Gives Advantages
The body of the law relating to
rates, stands out against the law
relating to every other question, as
a mountain to a molehill-the util-
ity seeking always to be relieved OF
it's burdens by passing them on to
the public, and the public seeking
to protect itself from poor service
and unjust exactions. To such an
extent is this true that the utility
and the public may well be classed
as natural enemies"
Almost every effort of the public
to decrease rates is met with the
cry of "confscation." There are
two very practical reasons for this.
One is that it is an effective cry,
because fair-minded people do not
believe in coniscating anybody'S
property; and, accepting the chargs
to be true; their sympathies are
enlisted on the side of the utility.
Appeal to Court
The other is that the Supreme
Court of the United States has held
that the power of that court to re-
view an order fixing rates is con-
fined to determining whether they
are "confscatory" Even the lay
man must see how important it is
for the utility to cry out against
"confiscation." 1t takes the double
chance of enlisting the sympathy OF
the public, and obtaining the jurls-
diction of the Supreme Court.
If the efforts of the public take
the form of competitive plants, or
of introducing new and important
methods of rendering service, the
cry is set up that innocent and
helpless investors are being ruined
by a gross breach of public faith.
It is a good answer to those who
honestly accept this point of view
that the Supreme Court, as long
ago as 1918, speaking through JUS
tice Holmes with an aptness and
force. which was one of his out
standing characteristics, said that
there was no promise in the Consti-
tuition ito private Adventures" who
invested their money in a public
utility that it would not encounter
competition.
Competition Recognized
On the other hand, he said, "the
constitutional possibility of such a
ruinous competition is recognized
in the cases." And Chief Justice
Hughes in a recent case said: THE
public have not underwritten the
investment"
The obligation of the investor is
to the public rather than the public
to the investor. The obligation Of
the public is to see that the utility
has a fair opportunity to earn a
fair return upon the cost of con-
Quoting it's business, not that 1t
shall be guaranteed against all losses
under all conceivable conditions.
by embarking his capital in a
utility" said Justice Brandeis, IAN
investor is bound to know that its
charges shall be reasonable"
(TomorrOw-HOw a "yardStick"
will helm not hurt. the inyeStor.l