Evening star., 1955-09-04

pany as well as to the public it
was necessary that a record be
developed which would permit
an equitable resolution Of these
fundamental and difficult ques-
tions.
Insofar as a proper resolution
of the issue in the case involved
q weighing Of the equities be-
tween the consuming public and
the company, it was also neces-
sary for the Commission to con-
slider the fairness of any pro-
posed new charges in the light
Of the needs Of the public and
the value Of the service to them.
The courts have consistently rec
ognized that the fixing of public
utility rates is not an automatic
process based upon simple ac-
counting data, but involves a
weighing of consumer and in
veStor interests.
No Prejudgment
>. We have set forth above
only some of the major problems
required to be considered by this
Commission in determining "just
and reasonable" rates in accord
ance with our ordinary statutory
responsibilities. This brief and
partial statement should suffice
to make clear the extent of the
abdication Of our responsibilities
which would have been involved
in acceding to demands that We
summarily grant the requested
fare increase in the pending rate
proceeding. The Commission. in
keeping with its uasi-judicial re /.
sponSibilities, sedulously avoided
any attempt to PREJUDICE the
complex issues involved in the
proceedings until the record was
completed and all of the parties
and participants were afforded
an opportunity to present their
respective contentious to it. We
do not know what the final de-
cision would have been because
the record was not completed
when the proceedings were
aborted.
Public Law 389 presented an
entirely new set of considera-
tions. 1t was a special measure
designed by Congress to meet
an emergency situation. In ad-
dition to cancelling the fran
chise and revoking the charter
of Capital Transit as of August
IA, 1856. it empowered the
Board Of Commissioners to
negotiate for transportation
service with Capital Transit or
others for the intervening Pc
riod. The law assigned to this
Commission the responsibility
OF recommending fares for this
period but did not impose either
the procedures of the criteria
normally applicable to the fixing
Of rates for service.
Commissioner Weston ap-
parently differs from the ma
jority of the Commission in his
view that Public Law 389 au-
thorized and required the Board
of Commissioners of the District
OF Columbia to make determina-
tions of the same type as would
be proper and necessary in the
rate proceedings herein dis
missed. We do not believe that
this was the intent of that
emergency measure nor do we
belive that it would have been
feasible or appropriate to decide
the complex. and in many re-
spects novel. issues involved on
the basis of an incomplete rec
ord and without the usual op-
portunities for briefs and oral
argument by the parties. AS to
the alleged alternative to a
negotiated fare structure Of jul
dicial proceedings to compel re-
sumption of service. 1t may be
noted that none of the cases
cited in the closing section of
the concurring opinion furnish
authority for the proposition
that an injunction would issue
to require the company to reach
a settlement with the union or
that a receiver would be ap-
pointed for that purpose. Indeed
one Of several cases cited by
Mr.. Weston is expressly to the
contrary. An attempt to require
resumption of service without
a settlement of the labor dis
pute would undoubtedly have
brought opposition from the
union as well as the company
and its success, from both a
legal and a practical stand
point, would have been highly
problematical. In short there
was a substantial probability