upr000063 89

ifying its action. Unless it does so, its decision will be set aside by a reviewing Court. In the case of New England Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. state (N.H. - 1949) 64A (2d) 9, the Supreme Court'of New Han©* shire in a recent decision reversing an order of the Public Ser­vice Commission said: nIt should be borne in mind that disallowances in investment base or expense of operation may not be arbitrarily made. Not only must their extent be fixed by findings, but the reason for disallowance must appear. In other words, they require disclosure 'of some rational process by which the consequences of any established impropriety are determined.” In the case of Central R. Co. v. Dept, of Public Utili­ties, 3lA (2d) 162, the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey in a decision issued on May 21, 1951, reversing a rate order of the State Department of Public Utilities said: ”Furthermore, the prevailing rule is that find­ings of facts below are essential in rate cases and may not be supplied by implication'. N.J. Bell Tel.Co; v. Communications Workers, etc., (5 N.J. at page 375, 75A 2d 721) supra; Colorado WyomingGas Co, v, Federal P, Comm., 324 U.S. 626, 65 S.Ct.'350, 89 L.Ed.1235 (1945); Wichita'Railroad & L'. Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 260 U.S;"4$, 43 S;Ct. 51, 67 L. Ed. 124, 130 (1922). -See 43 Am. Jr., Public Utilities and Services, sec. 134, p. 695, sec. 221, p. 713; Mt. Carmel Pub; Utility & Serv. Co. v.'Public Utilities Commission, 297 111. 303, 130 N.E. 693, 21 A.L.R. 571 (111.Sup.Ct.1921). In the case of N.J. Bell Tel. Co. v. Communications Workers, etc,, supra, we have recently been called upon to examine this phase of the problem and have said: ” * The requirement of findings is far from a tech­nicality and is a matter of substance. It has been said that it is a fundamental of fair play that an administrative judgment express a reasoned conclusion. Federal C.C. v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 60 S.Ct. 437, 34 L.Ed. 656 (1940). A conclusion -39-