Osborne I. Yellott, Esq., Assistant General Counsel of the Commission and a patron of the water company, filed a complaint with the Commission on behalf of himself and the other patrons of the Baltimore County Water and Electric Company affected by the shortage. The Commission thoroughly went into the question with the idea of permanently remedying the situation in this respect and preventing similar occurrences in the future so far as it lay in its power to do so. On August 19, 1918, the Commissioner before whom the case was heard filed his findings of fact and recommendations and shortly thereafter the Commission entered its order requiring further changes in and additions to the plant of the water company which it is earnestly believed will remedy the situation. On July 24, 1918, The United Railways and Electric Company of Baltimore petitioned the Commission for permission to increase the one-way and commutation fares of said company, the increase being uniformly one cent per trip, except in the case of one suburban line. Before the application came on to be heard the railways company on August 28, 1918, filed with the Commission a new tariff schedule putting the increased fares into effect on October 1. The Commission on September 18 filed a complaint on its own motion attacking the reasonableness of the increased fares, so as to bring the matter to an issue, and hearings were started on November 18, occupying in all nine days, in addition to which three days were devoted to arguments, the stenographic record being very voluminous. In addition a number of exhibits were filed, most of which consist of tabulations of figures detailing the results of the railway company's operations from its organization down to the present time, and also showing the enormous increased cost of operation experienced by this Company in the past year or more, particularly with respect to the cost of labor, wage increases since October, 1917, having effected an aggregate increase of more than $2,000,000 in the company's annual pay roll. The Commission hopes to render its decision in this matter within the next few days. The Commission has been party to several proceedings in the courts during the year, the various cases being more particularly touched upon in report of the General Counsel, which report, as well as reports of all other department heads, is hereto appended. Respectfully, ALBERT G. TOWERS, Chairman; JNO. MILTON REIFSNIDER, JAMES C. LEGG, Commissioners. The following report of the Secretary of the Commission for the year 1918 is respectfully submitted: During the year 166 cases were entered on the Formal Docket, of which 150 cases were closed by formal orders entered after careful and exhaustive investigation; hearings were had in all complaint cases before final disposition except where complaint was withdrawn or where complainant admitted satisfaction, thus rendering hearing unnecessary. On the Short Notice and Reparation Docket 73 cases were entered and closed by final orders during the year. Five hundred and seventy-six petty complaints formerly placed on Correspondence Docket but now handled by the Secretary were disposed of during the year. On the Formal Docket 1,617 cases have been entered since the Commission has been in existence, of which 1,591 have been settled and disposed of by final order, or otherwise, leaving 26 formal cases still open on this Docket as of December 31, 1918, one of which was filed December 23, 1918, but has not yet been set for hearing. During the past year hearings were had in 93 cases. These hearings in several cases extended over a period of from one day to three weeks. Number of formal orders entered in 1918 is 579. The issue of stocks and bonds has been authorized in the following Permission to exercise franchises has been granted to the following corporations: Maryland Motor Fast Freight Company. Consolidated Power Company of Baltimore. (In Wicomico County) three franchises. Northern Virginia Power Company. United Railways and Electric Company of Baltimore— (In Anne Arundel County.) (Connecting curves and tracks, Baltimore City.) Cecilton Electric Light and Power Company. Maryland Electric Railways Company (In Anne Arundel County.) Washington, Brandywine and Point Lookout Railroad Company. (Operation of switching railroad.) Trappe Electric Light Company. Elkton Water Works, Inc. A. H. Morris, W. E. Manifold, Henry S. Merriman and James T.. Smith (Electric plant and distributing system, Harford County.) Consumers' Ice Company (Electric plant and distributing system, Crisfield.) Potomac Electric Power Company (In Prince George's County and Mt. Rainier.) The abandonment of franchises previously exercised has been permitted in the cases of the following corporations: Southern Maryland Transit Company. Highways Transfer Company. I beg leave to submit the following report for the period from January 1, 1918, to December 31, 1918, with regard to the transactions of my office as General Counsel of the Commission: I rendered to the Commission 42 opinions in writing touching different questions submitted to me by it. In addition to these formal opinions, I have frequently been called upon to give oral and written advice to the Commission, and have attended numerous conferences held by it. In my report for the year 1917 I advised the Commission that a petition for rehearing had been filed in the Supreme Court by the plaintiff in error in the case of Pennsylvania Railroad Company, lessee of the Northern Central Railway Company, vs. Albert G. Towers, et al., (The Commutation Rate Case). This petition has now been dismissed by the Court. The Havre de Grace and Perryville Bridge Case was decided by the Court of Appeals last year; adversely to the contentions of the Commission so far as the opinion went, but not finally as the Commission is aware. The case of the Mayor and Common Council of Westminster vs. The Consolidated Public Utilities Company of Westminster and the Public Service Commission was appealed by the City of Westminster, after the decision by the Circuit Court for Carroll County (which I reported to you last year) and was argued during the early part of last year; with the result that the Court of Appeals sustained the action of the lower court, which, as you will recall, was favorable to the conditions of the Commission. It again became necessary to proceed against the Kensington Railway Company in the Montgomery County case. I was compelled to apply for an attachment against it for contempt for violating the preliminary injunction directed by the Court of Appeals. The Company was fined for the contempt and has since complied with the injunction. The Legislature convened in January and the Commission presented several bills to it for passage, namely, the "Grade Crossing” bill and the "Suspension of Rates" bill and various other bills embodying amendments to the Public Service Commission Law. All of these bills were rejected, with the exception of the following: The bill changing the date for the filing of Annual Reports by Public Service Corporations, and the bill modifying in an important respect the provisions of the Public Service Commission Law in regard to the issuance of stocks, bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness by common carriers and gas and electric corporations. After the Baltimore County Water and Electric Company rate case was reached for hearing before the Commission and was acted upon by it, appeals from the order of the Commission were taken by the County Commissioners of Baltimore County in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, and by the Associated Improvement Associations of Baltimore County also. Both appeals have been dismissed by the respective appellants. It became necessary during the year to file a petition for an injunction against Messrs. Fillinggame and Krastel, in the Circuit Court for Cecil County at Elkton, to restrain them from operating a motor vehicle in the transportation of passengers for hire without the permission of the Commission. This petition has not been heard up to this time, but will be reached shortly. Petitions for the same reason had to be filed by me in the Circuit Court for Harford County against two other persons. These two petitions are also awaiting a hearing, but will soon be reached for argument. It was also necessary for me to file an application on behalf of the Commission to have it made a party in the case of William R. Barnes vs. The United Railways and Electric Company of Baltimore in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, in which the power of the Commission to prescribe rates for the United Railways and Electric Company of Baltimore was denied. This application was granted by the Court, and I then entered a demurrer on behalf of the Commission to the jurisdiction of the Court. The demurrer was upheld after argument and the case dismissed. Various matters involving the delay of corporations in carrying out the orders of the Commission have been referred to me during the course of the year and are receiving my close attention. So far the prospect of adjustment in these cases has been too satisfactory to allow me to feel justified in bringing suit against any of the corporations. I regret to say that before the end of the year Mr. Osborne I. Yellott resigned his position as Assistant Counsel to return to the general practice of the law. The marked ability and untiring industry which he brought to the discharge of his duties are too well known to you to call for any comment by me on the loss that my department has sustained in his resignation. In his place I have appointed Mr. Joseph S. Goldsmith, on the strength of my personal familiarity with his |