Evening star., 1936-12-12
Higher Ability Needed for
Protection of Car Riders

To the Editor Of The Star:
It Is regrettable that we have Public
Utilities Commission unsatisfactory to
the people and too susceptible to repre-
sentations by traction magnateS. Prob
ably this Is 90 because little attention
seems to be given to basic principles and
fundamental obligations.
A steam railroad owns nearly all its
right-of-way, the property on which 1t
operates Is mainly its own. But a street
railway uses the peoples highways; 1t
could not operate without such use.
It Is important that such commission
rs well as "the courts should adhere firmly
to the salutary doctrine underlying the
whole law Of municipal corporations and
the doctrine OF the adjudged cases, that
grants Of special privilege affecting the
general interests are to be literally con-
strued In the interest of the public, and
that no public body. charged with public
duties, be held upon mere implication
or presumption to have Invested itself
Of its powers" The quoted words are
from the United States Supreme Court
decision in the Knoxville Water Co. case
GOO U. s., 3D.
Congress has laid down with particu-
larity the requirements to be complied
with by street railway corporations in
the District. The commission, as well
as the public, is aware that these require
ments too often are met in the breach
rather than in the observance. The
commissions duty to the public Is to
block every effort to get more money
from car riders until these fundamental
obligations are fully met.
The commission was furnished ample
reasons why the weekly pass never should
receive its approval. 1t was shown to be
unfair discrimination against the poor
man. 1t was fantastic plan that has no
rational relation to Communication ticket.
1t worked as game of chance. in which
the pass buyer or the railway might come
out either winner or loser when the week
ended. Evidently the railway found 1t
not profitable enough to continue as
started
Two classes Of riders were distinctly
provided for by a pass for unlimited
weekly street car use at 81 and a pass for
unlimited weekly bus car use at $125.
To approve now a pass at $1.25 is to dis
crirninate additionally against the ex-
elusive car user in favor of the bus car
user. 1t retains for the bus car user
unlimited weekly use that is taken
away from the exclusive car user unless
he pays rs per cent above the old rate
1t is, in effect, a continued favor to one
class. but a Is per cent increase against
the other. The 81 IS pass also should be
discontinued when the 81 pass no longer
Is sold. A public interest involved should
prevent the commission from being the
medium to get more money from the
public for transportation system by
such methods.
Where is the court basis for any in
creased fare reQuests2 The Capital
Traction Co. has a valuation and OBJ
tanned court order approving increased
fares because the commission seemed
unable to protect public rights. The
Washington Railway l. Electric Co. has
no valuation, the bus lines had neither
valuation nor charter from Congress to
use the public streets. Hence the Capital
Transit Co. "a merger of the three) is
a creature the court never knew, to my
knowledge
Regardless of new valuation that will
include all parts of the merged car and
bus lines the Public Utilities Commission
strenuously should prevent any increase
in fares until such service is rendered al
the law requires.
JOSEPH w. CHEYNEY.