upr000276 125

% dw elling, and under the new c la s s if ic a t io n we doubled said f l a t charge; we also asked fo r f i f t y cents ad d ition al fo r bath and t o i l e t , and th is we also applied to bungalow co u rts. With the exception o f the follow ing items — e x tra ch a ir in barber shop; p u blic b ath s; ad d ition al rooms to houses; bath and t o i l e t s fo r p riv ate houses; e x tra fam­i l i e s ; re sta u ra n ts; pu blic t o i l e t s and p riv ate t o i l e t s in s to r e s - - there were only th ir ty - f iv e a ctu a l users a t the time the l i s t was prepared, in the cla sse s where no in crease was asked, nam ely,— 28 re sta u ra n ts; 5 public h a lls ; 1 court house, and 1 blacksm ith shop. Of the nine items fo r which we asked an in crease o f twenty to f i f t y per cen t only, we had only 35 actu al u sers, with the exception o f s to r e s . In regard to s to r e s , we debated sev eral days as to the a d v is a b ility o f asking fo r a 100 per cent in cre a se , and a fte r considering th at sto res use very l i t t l e w ater, and th is water Is used p rin c ip a lly in the t o i l e t s fo r which we asked an ad d ition al charge, and inasmuch as the sto res would pass th is e x tra charge on to th e ir customers against whom we had already asked f o r a 100 per cent in cre a se, we deemed i t advisable to ask only fo r a f i f t y per cent in cre a se . Fourth: A f l a t in crease o f 100 per eent on a l l c l a s s i f i ­catio n s lis t e d in the old schedule would have made the same more unbalanced and more u n s c ie n tific than i t was b e­fo r e , and we knew th at such a r a is e could not be ju s t if ie d before the Commission upon a hearing o f p ro te sts that were sure to fo llo w .. As I t was, we had good grounds fo r b e lie v ­ing th a t the r a te s asked f o r , namely, about s ix ty percent in cre a se— would be allowed without any p r o te s t. I might add th a t the alleg ed d e f i c i t during the period from January 1 , 1920, to September 30, 1931, o f $ 2 9 ,9 9 4 .0 9 does not r e ­f l e c t - - oth er than through our accounting system— the true s ta tu s , in th a t, i t appears in our annual rep orts h ereto fo re f ile d w ith the P u blic Serv ice Commission, and which was d isclo sed a t the hearing o f our a p p lica tio n , th at there was expended fo r p ip elin e replacements and extensions and charged to operating expense, an item of | 5 ,853.77 in 1922, one o f $ 1 8 ,748.32 in 1924, and one o f $ 1 7 ,5 4 3 .9 9 In 1926. No doubt there was some reason fo r th is method o f account­in g , but n ev erth eless i t does not r e f l e c t the true con d ition, which was apparent to the Commission. R e la tiv e to securing an in crease fo r ce rta in or any c la sse s of serv iee now furnished under our schedule at Las V eg a s,-- in my 2-