worth as a man and a lawyer, as well as the general esteem in which he is held among the members of his profession in Baltimore City. All of which is respectfully submitted. Truly yours, WILLIAM CABELL BRUCE, General Counsel. REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL REPORT OF OSBORNE I. YELLOTT, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL ΤΟ THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND For the Period January 1, 1918, to September 30, 1918 To the Hon. W. Cabell Bruce, General Counsel to the Public Service Commission DEAR SIR: of Maryland, Baltimore, Md. I submit herewith a report of the work of my office during the period beginning January 1, 1918, and terminating with my resignation and the severance of my official relation with the Public Service Commission September 30, 1918. GENERAL WORK During the above period I was frequently called upon by the Commission from time to time to render services of various kinds to it and its several departments in connection with a great number and variety of matters which have come before it for attention. Many of such conferences were informal, and no record of the same was kept in my office. OPINIONS From time to time I have given the Commission formal opinions in relatively minor matters, some of these being with respect to the following: Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, effect of Sections 15 and 19 of the Public Service Commission Law; Interstate Motor Express Company in response to its request for an opinion upon a certain phase of the law; Northern Virginia Power Company, pro posed bond issue; Potomac Electric Power Company, with respect to proposed bond issue; Complaint of A. G. Campbell vs. P., B. & W. R. R. Co.; Walter F. MacNeal & Co. vs. C. & P. Tel. Co.; O. L. Tunis vs. County Commissioners of Anne Arundel Co. with respect to the Commission's jurisdiction over a county highway bridge; Pocomoke Bridge Company, with respect to transportation free or at reduced rates to State employees and others, and Commissioners of St. Michael's, with respect to their jurisdiction over certain public utilities. In most instances these opinions were submitted to you, and will appear at length in the annual report. COMPLAINTS In a number of instances I was assigned as People's Counsel to represent complainants in contested cases before the Commission. Among the more important of these were the complaints as to rates against the Consolidated Gas Electric Light and Power Company of Baltimore and as to service and rates against The United Railways and Electric Company of Baltimore, the complaint of William H. Stinson vs. The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, the case of Hughes vs. Consolidated Gas Company and the case of Fitzsimmons vs. United Railways and Electric Company. In a large number of other instances I adjusted without contest before the Commission a number of complaints by individuals against various utilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The most important cases handled by me during the past year have been those of the application of the Consolidated Gas Electric Light and Power Company of Baltimore for increased gas rates and the application of The United Railways and Electric Company for permission to increase its fares one cent. My work in connection with the former was terminated prior to my resignation as Assistant General Counsel. In the case of The United Railways and Electric Company I was employed by you as Special Counsel to represent the public and the Commission in the matter of the complaint of the latter against the rates put into effect by the Railways Company upon thirty days' statutory notice. The hearings and arguments in this case were concluded December 19, 1918, and the Commission has since rendered its opinion. On September 30, 1918, the date upon which my resignation as Assistant General Counsel became effective, the work of my office was completed as far as it was susceptible of being completed at that time, regard being had to the fact that in some instances the work necessary to complete cases was in the hands of other departments. In my letter to you resigning my position as Assistant General Counsel, I expressed my appreciation of your many kindnesses and courtesies to me while I was your assistant. Throughout the entire period of our official relations you consistently relieved me of and took upon yourself many duties which were properly mine as Assistant General Counsel, but the performance of which you thought would interfere with a proper performance of my duty as People's Counsel. I have always been fully appreciative of your consideration in this respect, as well as in respect to many other matters which arose from time to time. Respectfully submitted, OSBORNE I. YELLOTT, Former Assistant General Counsel. REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL REPORT OF JOSEPH S. GOLDSMITH, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL ΤΟ THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND For the Period October 7, 1918, to December 31, 1918 To the Hon. W. Cabell Bruce, General Counsel to the Public Service Commission DEAR SIR: of Maryland, Baltimore, Md. I entered upon the duties of this office on October 7, 1918. The inevitable delays which are incident to the transfer of the duties of a public office from one incumbent to another, especially when the performance of said duties involves extensive research, and investigation of complicated matters, must be offered as the explanation of my inability to report, at this time, the completion of such number of matters of business as might otherwise be reasonably expected, in the time which has elapsed since the time of my appointment. When I entered upon the duties of the office two matters were pending which required the attention of the Assistant General Counsel. One was the complaint against The United Railways and Electric Company, on account of the increase of carfares to six cents. That case had been pending for some months before my appointment, and a considerable amount of work had been done upon it by my predecessor. He was retained as Special Counsel to complete the task. I carefully examined and considered the evidence in the case, and appeared with Mr. Yellott at the hearing. As you know without my so stating, my capable predecessor needed no suggestions from me, and I therefore took no active part in the controversy. The other pending case to which my predecessor had been assigned was the complaint of the Mayor and Common Council of Westminster against the Consolidated Public Utilities Company of Westminster. To that case I have given a considerable amount of time and labor. It was expected that it would be heard before this date, but the Commission found it necessary, for various reasons, to postpone the hearing, and it is now intended that it shall be disposed of during the latter part of the present month. The complaint of the Mayor and City Council of Havre de Grace against the Havre de Grace Water Company was pending when I entered upon the duties of this office, and I have since been directed to represent and assist the complainant in that case. There is nothing further worthy of special mention at this time. I beg to submit herewith report of the operations of the Engineering Department for the current year. During the year 83 special trips of inspection were made throughout the entire State, as compared with 69 last year. This does not include the many trips to points in the immediate vicinity of Baltimore. The 131 formal reports made by this department to the Commission may be classified as follows: Many of these reports were very voluminous and required months of work and investigation. Notable among them are: The valuation of the Washington County Water Company of Hagerstown; the Salisbury Water Company; the Havre de Grace Water Company; the Consolidated Public Utilities Company of Westminster, consisting of two water properties, one electric property and one gas property; and the John J. Carlin Heating Company, the latter being a district steamheating operation. There was a very general complaint throughout the State on the part of the public against the quality of gas which was supplied during the bitter cold weather of the past winter. Investigation by this Department showed that the condition was due primarily to the fuel situation because of the war, the companies being unable to procure proper gas coal. Many coal-gas companies were compelled to use steam coal, while water-gas companies suffered from failure in delivery of both coal and oil. Some of the complaints, however, were due to the abnormally low temperatures which prevailed, with the resultant high gas consumption, the general shortage in anthracite coal used for domestic purposes inducing the installation of large numbers of gas-heating devices. It is proper to point out that in the year 1917-18 the public service corporations were confronted with unusual operating difficulties. Those enterprises dependent upon fuel were frequently embarrassed by their inability to get fuel of a suitable character, and on some occasions none was procurable. This obviously led to unsatisfactory service, and in the extreme cases to complete interruptions of supply. This condition was grossly exaggerated by the extreme severity of the winter weather. The situation was further complicated by abnormally high costs of materials and labor, impossibility of securing deliveries, and the defection of skilled men from permanent organizations under the lure of higher wages in the war industries. The result of these conditions greatly stimulated complaints generally of service rendered by utilities beyond the normal, despite the efforts of managers to meet the new situation. I. METER TESTING Routine tests of gas meters to the number of 23,467 have been made and 9,324 electric meters, 7 gas meters and 7 electric meters were tested upon complaint of consumers, a total of 32,805. Compared with last year, these figures show a decrease of 31.1 per cent. in the total of gas meters tested, and 30.2 per cent. of electric meters. The following table gives the number of gas and electric meters tested for each year during the past eight years: |