Evening Star Newspaper, December 6, 1928, Page 4

MALTBIE’S REPORT ON MERGER OF TRACTION COMPANIES DRASTIC CHANGES URGED BY EXPERT Sanate’s Utilities Prober Flatly Rejects Proposed I sa $50,000,000 Valuation, |33 | (Continued from First Page) ments to include provisions specifying the value of property or the method of | adjusting such value from time to time. | In my opinion the entire section re- | lating to values and the determination | of fares in accordance therewith could wisely be omitted and these subjects | left for determination by the properly constituted authorities when the ques- tions arise. Sees No Need for Change. Unification may be brought about| without changing the status of any of the partics to the agreement, and it would seemn that this is the nalural course to frllow so far as valua.ion and rate-making are concerned. | The proposed agreement creates & situation which cannot be altered for | 10 years. This is unnecessary and ob- | jectionable, and it is recommended that there be omitted from any unifica- {ion agreement any attempt to change | the status of the property or the pow- »rs of Congress and the Public Utilities Commission as to valuation and rate- making. (b) The section of the proposed )greement relating to the supply of power to the new company is complex and difficult of interpretation. The subject of future power rates to the hew company might well be left under fhe general authority granted to the Public Utilities Commission to prescribe | rates. | A recommendation that several | rhanges in contract provisions with re- wect to purchase of power by new iransit company from Potomac Electric Power Co. Also the sale of power lacilities of she new company to the Potomac Electric Power Co., instead u(i laase as now provided. (This applies to | present power properties of Capital | Fraction Co.) Would Not Ban Rivalry. (c) Advises against contractual pre rision of unification agreement protect- Ing new company against competition. Recommends instead provision that tompeting transportation lines may not | be established without the issuance of » certificate that new line is necessary lor conventience of public. (d) The unification agreement pro- vides that the new company shall assume the liability of the old com- | panies for injuries and damages, but makes no provision for any transfer o {he new company of any funds for the | payment of claims. The old companies should be required to settle all claims Tor injuries arid damages up to the time | »f the transfer of the property to the new company, or the liability which the | new company assumes should be pro- | vided for either by insurance * * or establishment of an adequate fund represented by cash or securities. | (e) The unification agreement places | upon the Public Utilities Commission the power and duty of passing upon practically every act which the new tompany will perform. * * * Such a | Erovmnn is likely to be ignored in prac- | ice or to be productive of delay and irresponsibility. 1f there is necessity | for approval by the commission of im- nt matters, such approval should | g;ovlded for either by general ncl; of gress or specifically in the con- | t. Would Clarify Power. | Dr. Maltbie and the Bureau of Effi- riency are in accord in recommending | that the arrangement under which the | merged railway company would o tain electric current from the power rompany be clarified. The two reports differ on the ques- tion of giving the merged company | reasonable protection against competi- | lion. Dr. Maltbie would permit the rommission to authorize new transpor- | lation upon issuing a certificate of ronvenience and necessity. The effi- | Hiency report took the view that there is | ro merit in objections to this clause in | ihe agreement as long as the company Is goperly regulated. inting out that the agreement does not specify the percentage of return to | be earned by the new company, but leaves that to be determined by the commission, Dr. Maltbie gives estimates i | nies that with a unified system service | haps exceeded by the benefits which | company. Competition is a great stim- jof the amount of net income that would be needed to provide various | rates of return. He concludes that to |earn a 7 per cent return the, company | would require total net income of $3.- | 500,000, and that in order to obtain | that amegnt of net income “the new company would have the right under the contract to increase fares appreci- | ably.” | Present Rate for Year. The unification agreement provides, | however, that present fares shall re- main in force for one year. Continuing his discussion of fares, Dr. Maltbie sald: | ‘What rate of fare would be neces- | ry to produce & net income of | 500470 under all circumstances that seem Blkely 10 obtain in 1930 is specu- lative. The best estimate that I can | make is that an 8-cent cash fare would | be required or some schedule approxi- | mately equivalent to a 10~cent cash fare with 4 tokens for 30 cents. It is in- teresting to note that these are the | schedules which the companies have | submitted to the Public Utilitles Com- | mission for approval under present con= ditions without unification.” Dr. Maltbie gives a lengthy analysis | of the court proceedings in the Capital | Traction Co. basis of w panies claim a combined value of | $62.000.000. and declares that the rccord | presented in both the District Supreme | Court and the Court of Appeals was “incomplete, defective and otherwise unsatisfactory.” He added that, “What- ever may be the reason, it seems to be admitted that the case was not | adequately prepared or presented upon | behalf of the public.” The following is the summary of | facts and opinions in support of con- | clusions | This is the first time that an agree- | ment has actually been signed by the | two companies and submitted for ap- proval of Congress. * * * No one de could be improved, the amount of prop- erty required adequately to serve the | public reduced, the cosis of operation curtailed and vehicular traffic accele- rated and convenienced. The gain to the public would be equaled and per- would accrue to the companies. * * * The question to be considered in this report is not whether unification is de- sirable, but whether the terms under which it is to be effected are fair and reasonable. Bus Company Left Out. _ The unification ggreement does not in and of itself provide for the merger | or consolidation of the Washington | Rapid Transit Co. (bus company), but | declares hat this company shall be | merged or consolidated with the new company when and if the Public Util- ities Commission shall so require. Harley P. Wilson is to receive for his | stock $596.000 plus interest from Feb- | ruary 1, 1928. Disregarding interest, | the consideration is nearly three times | the par value of the stock. The agree- ment does not so provide, but it was stated to the Public Utilities Commis- sion that payment would be made out | of current funds and not capitalized. It is important to note that such pay- ment would reduce the funds avail- able for unification purposes by more | than $600.000. 1f ‘the net current| assets shall prove to be $2,400.000 as estimated, the reduction in available cash would be a substantial one. Advises against enactment by Con- gress of that section of joint resolu- ton which provides: “That e Caplital Transit Co. shall | be reasonably protected against com- | petition with any of its street railway | lines, bus lines or other forms of trans- | portation by the Public Utilities Com-‘ mission of the District of Columbia.” States that this might be construed to prevent competition even by taxicabs. | Cites Competition Value, States further: *“The agreement and congressional resolution virtually give the new company & monopoly of street railway and bus transportation, and possibly of other forms of transporta- tion in the District of Columbia. It would be unfortunate if all passenger trapsportation in Washington or in the control area were controlled by one | X | to authorize new forms of tr - | tion. Pollce powers should niot be bar- gained away, and the courts are very | reluctant to approve a contractual limi- | tation of such powers, as numerous de- | cisions in rate cases clearly indicate.” Condemn’s “Power Provision.” ‘The report critici; and condemns, because of its uncertainty in actual pplication now and in the future, the “power provision” of the unification agreement. This provision contemplates a contract by the Potomac Electric| Power Co. to supply the new transit company with power on such terms that the net cost thereof to the new com- pany shall' not exceed the aggregate cost of power to the two present com- panies if the present arrangements were continued. ‘The report states: “If one were to follow the reports of the companies, the ggregate cost of power’ would be $324,- revenues from sales to non-merger com- panies. * * * But this is not as the presidents of the two companies con- strue the term ‘aggregate cost. would eliminate all depreciation charges from cost and all revenue from sales to companies outside of the merger. Upon this basis, the aggregate cost would be pald for current sold to non-merger companies, bat not deducting the amount received for it.” Guiding Principle Missing. “When at some future time one is trying to decide what the limiting force of ‘aggregate cost of power would be * * % were the present arrangements continued’ as applied to the cost at the generating station, he will be faced with a number of problems, and there is no | guiding principle in the proposed unifi- cation agreemgnt. “Those who have taken a most active part in the negotiations and the draft- ing of the contract do not agree now as to how the standard specified shall be applied. How much more like! they will not agree in the future! Continuing, the report states: “It is very significant that neither in the power clause nor in any of the above suggestions is there any recog- nition of the idea that the new com- pany shall have any benefit from any future economies or reduced costs in power production, transmission and con- version that may come from unifica- tion or from electrical progress. The Potomac Electric Power Co. would keep all of the gain, and the expenditures required to obtain the benefits of uni- fication and possibly other expenditures are to be added to the rate base upon which the new railway company is entitled to earn & return. Future Not Provided For. “The fallure of the agreement to pro- vide that the new company shall bene- fit from future economies and progress in the electrical industry is, of course, indefensible. It negatives the whole the- ory of Government regulation. It pre. vents the public from receiving an: to share in the lower cost of render- ing the service. “If aggregate cost does mean.a lump sum and that lump sum is $660,000, a still greater injustice would be done. For if the amount of energy consumed by the two railway systems were to decrease, the amount paid for power should de- crease and not remain fixed. Further, if the amount sold were to decrease or the contracts canceled or not renewed, the aggregate cost should decrease. ‘The power company should not increase its rates to absorb the decrease. Like- wise, any increase in consumption should not work to the power company. In another place the report reads: “Why should not the Public Utilities Comission fix the rates charged by the Potomac Electric Power Co. to all con- sumers? Why should the rates paid by the general public be regulated by commission action and not by contract, and the rates paid by rallway compa- nies be fixed by contract and not by regulation, particularly when the latter will in turn become & factor in fixing fares to be paid by the public? Flexibility Need Seen. ulant. Public regulation is not & satis- nation. | “The proposal is most unusual, and | there has been no demonstration, in ' my opinion, of any need for a con-| tractual obligation to protect the new company @gainst competition. The usual requirement in force in many States is that a new line of transpor- tation may not be established unless a | certificate of public convenience and | necessity is obtained from some ad- | ministrative authority, which posseses | discretionary power subject to appeal to the courts. | ‘The public should preserve its power | ChriStmas~Lamps and Mirrors, Small Rugs and Chazrs, Tables and Occasional Pieces ~ five great floors of gifts~useful gifts. MAHOGANY DESKS W. & J. SLOANE Includi $89.00 “Important reasons why regulation | factory substitute in all respects. The | has superseded contracts are the need | tendency of monopolies is toward stag- | for an adjustable method fitted to| changing conditions which cannot be foretold, the tendency of long-term con- tracts to become unfair and the possi bility of discrimination. If these apply to the ordinary consumer, they have | still greater force in relation to's con- tract such as proposed here, where great changes are,certain to occur.” With reference to the merger value and rate base, the report states that to bring about a merger under tife plan of exchanging stock, etc., “4t would not be necessary to value the property acquired by the new company. Indeed, companiés are seldom merged WING CHAIRS from $60.00 END TABLES Jrom $8.00 BRIDGE LAMPS from $13.50 ““The House with the Green Shutters” 709-711-713 TWELFTH STREET, N. W., WASHINGTON, D. C. Store Open from 9 A. M. to 5:30 P. M. Daily ng Saturday Sloane Endorsed Merchandise Cay 708 for 1927, after eliminating inter-, company sales and after deducting the | They | $660.725 for 1927, including the price | hat | of the benefits of electrical progress. | s s The public is not to be allowed | disadvantage of the | DR. MILO R. MALTBIE. _ | or consolidated with valuations ap- proved by State legislatures or Con- gre They are commonly lacking in mergers or consolidations approved by | regulatory commissions. Unification | does not change the constitutional status of property. It has all the protection | | of the Constitution afterward that it | had before. Of course, where a new | ot of stockholders are acquiring prop- | erty a valuation may be very necessary, | but where there is merely a redistribu- | tion of interests it is not so important. Question Value Included. Report raises question as to whether | $50,000,000 rate base provided excludes | working capital | Further states “The rate base is not | limited to property within the District of Columbia or to property used for in terstate service. It includes the prop- erty used in part or in whole for ervice in the State of Maryland. What authority does the Public Utilities Com- misison have, or may it have, to estab- lish a rate base or value of property used for intrastate service in Maryland? * » * What, then, is the legal eflect or validity of an agreement that calls | for the establishment of a rate base or value by a body whi¢h has no authority to cstablish it?” “The limitation of $50,000,000 to used and useful property is not bene- ficial to the public. Car riders would be better off if the $50,000,000 covered all of the property of the Capital Trac- tion Co. and all of the physical prop- | erty of the Washington Railway & Elec- tric Co.—everything proposed to be turned over except cash and securities. “All liabilities which attach to the properties pass to the new company, | but the proposed agreement makes no provision for the transfer of any de- preciation reserve or any depreciation fund: * ¢ ¢ The reserves of over | | i | ment. The only funds transferred are | part of current asscts, - None is to be | earmarked as devoted to accruing de- | preciation. Further, part of these funds is to be used at once to pay for the stock of & bus company; and when any other part is used to acquire additional property, the cost is to be added to the rate base. Depreciation Fund Missing. “The agreement is completely silent about an initial depreciation reserve, | and there is to be no depreciation fund. This means that the income from the securities taken over by the new com- pany, which belong to the depreciation reserves of the old companies, will be diverted from the depreciation funds | to surplus or profit and loss. This will increase the future burdens of the car riders, as will be more fully pointed out | in another place in this report.” “It is important to keep these facts in mind, for when one comes to con- sider the value of the property in re- lation to the rate base of £50,000,000, it must be remembered that there is no depreciation reserve or fund of any kind or description. “There are unseftled claims for in- juries and damages which the new | company 1s required to assume by the | agreement. * * * In the statement | submitte dto the Public Utilities Com- mission showing the current assets and | liabllities to be transferred to the new company by the Capital Traction Co. no damage reserve or fund is included. As the Washington Railway & Electric Co. is to match this transfer, presum- ably that company will not include any, damage reserve or fund in the settle- ment, and I am advised that both com. panies expect that the new company will settle all claims for injuries and - o, usands of things to give for Fo ) Freight paid to all shipping points in the United States rries An Assurance of Satisfaction $7,700,000 are ignored by the agree-| | damages not adjusted by the date of ‘ transfer. | _“Upon this basis the obligations actu- | ally assumed by the new company will be in excess of those appearing on the balance sheet already given * * * and this is a fact to be reckoned with when considering the value of the property and of the current assets to be assigned to the new company. “Neither the property nor the income under the new arrangement should be burdened with expenses or liabilities 1elating to operations in a prior period. The old companles should be required to settle all claims for injurles or dam- ages applicable to their operation * * * or an adequate fund should be created * * * no part of the rate base * ¢ * which would be used to settle all claims. “How the figure of $50,000,000 to be used as the initial rate base was de- | termined, does not seem to be clear.” Report points out that companies claim that under court decision in Capi- { | tal Traction Co. valuation case, their © | combined valuation would be over $62,- 80 | | 000,000, and that they are willing to into a merger on a $50,000,000 rate- | base valuation instead. | Previous Figures Recalled. Report points out that the Publie Utilities Comm’ sion in its determina- | tion on Septeinber 4, 1919, found the historical cost of the property of the Capltal Traction Co. within and without the District of Columbia used and useful for electric railway operation to be $11,- 358,757. But final decision of the courts fixed the value as of January 1, 1925 at $25,756,880. The former Public Util. ities Commission also found the his- torical cost of the other line, the Wash- ington Railway & Electric Co. to be $12,672,647, and the “total fair value” as of June 30, 1919, to be slightly over $16,000,000. Report says with reference to the court decision as to valuation of Capital Traction Co. (on which $62,000,000 combined valuation and $50,000,000 merger rate base are based): “The record before the Supreme Court, end the Court of Appeals was incom- plete, defective and otherw! unsatis- factory. Whatever may be the reason, | it seems to be ldmlt&‘:i that the case was not adequately prepared or pre- sented upon behalf of the public. “Factors which the United States Supreme Court has declared should be considered in determining fair value were not before the District cogrta, and elements were included which the United Supreme Court has ruizd should be disregarded.” Many Changes Ignored. “Alhough nearly 11 years had elapsed since the inventory was made, a world war had been begun and ended, great changes had taken place in prices, con- struction methods and particularly street railway operation, and no investi- gation had been made for at least 10 years as to the condition of the prop- erty, the amount of accrued deprecia- tion actually existing or its utility for street rallway operation, the case was submitted as it stood when the commis- sion made its finding.” Report quotes from Court of Appeals decision, in which it was admitted that | “there is no testimony in -the present record as to actual depreciation of the property.” Report continues: “It is clear, both from the record of the case and the opinion itseif, that there was no tes- timony before the court as to the amount of depreciation actually existing in the Pmpurty as of any date later than July 1, 1914. How could any court make a finding of fact as to deprecia- tion in 1927 upon any such record? ‘The record is deficlent in many other respects.” Last Basic Study in 1924, Report points out that no complete, thoroughgoing inventory and valua- tion has been made, in a basic ‘way, since 1914. Report calls attention to ract that 1919 the Public Utilitles Commission | valuation of - Washington Rallway & | Electric Co. was appesled by railway to courts in December, 1919, but “cases | were never pressed, and no decision las | been rendered by the Supreme Court or | the Court of Appeais. But an attempt has been made to forecast the decis- jons. It has been assumed, for example, | that no depreciation whatever would | be deducted, notwithstanding that the | accrued depreciation as of July 1, 1914, | found by the commussion’s engineers |agreement as to ‘rate base adjustments | and approved by the commission was about 24 per cent of the cost of the de- preciable property, materially in ex- cess of the percentage found in the case of the Capital Traction Co.” “From the above facts it is my opin- fon that the total value claimed by the companies as of January 1, 1928, amounting to $62,128,447, does not represent the true value of the prop- erties as of that date, and that it does not represent the value which would be found by the District courts upon | ] ord covering all elements of value of the used and useful property if the case | were adequately and effectively pre- | sented. | Decision Not Binding. “The District courts passed upon the case as it was presanted to them, and the findings so made do not bind the commission or the courts in a iater proceeding upon a different record with all of the facts adequately presented. “The only way in which one cculd be reasonably certain of the value of | property is through the preparation of |an inventory of recent date, an exam- !ination of the property, and a deter- | mination of the various elements whith | must be considered, such as actual cost, | reproduction cost, earning _capacity | suitability to present requirements, de- | preciation, ete. Report states that the Public Util- ities Commission, as a result of its in- vestigation in 1915-1919, found the | actual cost of the street railway prop- erties to be approximately $25,000,000, compared with a cost shown on the books of the companies of $45,000,000. “If one were to add a generous al- lowance for the property belonging to the three companies (subsidiaries not included in 1914-1918) the total cost as of January 1, 1928, would not exceed $32,000,000. This amount includes prop- |erty that is not used and useful and | non-transit property to some extent. | The difference of nearly $20,000,000 between the cost obtained in the man- ner above described and the book cost | is due to securities issued for franchise, | property which has been destroyed, re- | moved or abandoned and not written lout of capital account, and possibly | other factors. ! Dependable Basis Missing. | “It is certainly true that there is no dependable reproduction cost of the used and useful property of the two Washington systems as of any current date which could be accepted as the basis for rate-making for 10 years.” Reports state that deducting depreci- ation in accordance with United States Supreme Court rulings and on basis of former Public Utilities Commission find- ings of depreciation percentages on { local lines, approximately $12,000,000 | would have to deducted from $62.- 000.000 reproduction cost figure cited by companies. “But this method contains two im- portant assumptions that are incorrect; first, that the amount of depreciation on January 1, 1928, is no greater in second, that the accrued depreciat percentage is no greater upon the basis of 1925 reproduction costs than of 1914 reproduction costs. “While the properties have teen well maintained * * * it is' certain that much of the property is older and has much less remaining useful life than |14 years ago. * * * I am of the opin- ! lon that the amount of depreciation in | the case of rolling stock is consider- ably in excess of the percentage appli- cable to 1914.” 25 Per Cent a Minimum. “It does not seem that the deprecia- | tion could be less than 25 per cent of the reproduction cost of the used and useful property. I am reasonably- sure | that it would exceed 25 per cent of the | reproduction cost of the identical prop- | erty, and that such cost less deprecia- | tion would not reach $50.000,000. “However, as reproduction cdst less depreciation is not the sole measure of value, but weight must be given to other factors, even under the latest de- cisions of the United States Supreme Court, and as all of the other factors | to be considered would produce a value less than reproduction cost less depre clation, it is my opinion that a thoroug! examination of the property and the consideration of all elements of value would produce a figure $50,000,000.” Report criticizes lack of certainty in | OO RN RORCROROR RN RN RO & complete, up-to-date and proper rec- ! percentage than upon July 1, 1914, m(L1 less than | during next 10 years, including deduc- tlons for property retired and additions for improvements and betterments, It also criticizes lack of proper pro- vision for depreciation reserves and funds and shows that annual deprecia- tlon charge for a single street car originally costing $6,500 might vary, under different methods that could be applied, from $126 to $2,000. “In_discussing this matter with the officials of the companies, it was stated that this matter had been left to the | determination of the commission and | that the companies would follow what- ever method the commission adopt: The agreement, however, affords no pro- | tection, and the matter is too vitally | important to pass unsettle P | Holds Move Improper. | “There is another significant omis- | | sion affecting the depreciation reserv and amortization. Nothing is said in | the proceeds from the sale of property which is or will be included in the rate | |base. In response to questions asked | jon this point, it has been stated by officials of the companies that such .’pmceed will be placed to the credit of | profit 2':d loss or surplus and not in | the reserves. This is clearly improper. | The amount received does not represent | | a profit from the operation of the com- | | pany, but the sale of assets, and the | proceeds from such sales should be | kept entirely distinct from earnings due to operation. “In view of the terms of the proposed agreement and particularly the provi- sions relating to the amortization of re- tirements, it is essential that the pro- ceeds from the sale of all propert; in- cluded or to be included in the rate base | should be placed in the depreciation re- | | serve and used to amortize the loss due to retirements.” “The initial rate base fixed by the unification agreement * * * is | remain in effect for 10 years and there- | | after until a revaluation is made. There | | has been some discussion as to whether | the commission may begin revaluation | | proceedings before the end of the 10| | years or must wait until a decade has | passed. If the latter is the correct in- | terpretation, the contract practically | | fixes a rate base for from 12 to 15 years. | | This would seem to be an unnatural | construction, and the point could readily | | be covered by adding a sentence which would give the commission power to be- gin a revaluation at ahy time, but not to make a finding effective until 10 years | had elapsed.” { “The practical -effect of the 10-year| limitation is to deprive Congress and the | Public Utilities Commission of the power | to fix the value of the property and the | fares to be charged for at least 10 years. In other words, the power to regulate | rates, a_sovereign power, is to be sus- | pended for a decade. Rate litigation is | replete with decisions holding that the delegation of such power or its limita. tion will not be upheld unless the sov- | ereign authority has clearly authorized | such action and it has been accomplish- | ed in clear and unmistakeable terms. | “Assuming that the unification agree- | ment is a legal limitation of the power | of Congress and its agent, the Pubuc“ Utilitles Commission. there will be no | authority anywhere to change the rate | base for 10 years, and the amount ob- | | tained by the .interpretation of thej | agreement will be the fair value of th?l | property for rate-making purposes for | a decade. | . _“Prices may decline, other methods of transportation may be invented, eco- nomic and industrial conditions may be | altered, but the rate base will take cognizance of no such factors except | so far as they may affect the cost of | propefty which may be added during | the 10-year period. | No Change Authorized. | | “The surviving property will stand at | | the amount now agreed upon, and, al- though conditions may so change as to eliminate the present excess of repro- | duction cost or of the $50,000,000 rate | "bn.se over actual cost, nevertheless the public will be required to pay upon this | excess for 10 years. Upon the other hand, if conditions should so change as | the agreement regarding the use of | Beauty needs proper protec- tion. Keep your hair soft and. lustrous and your scalp clean and vigorous with Conti Shampoo, made from Conti pure olive oil Castile Soap. It contains no alcohol and thoroughly. rinses freely and CONT} CASTILE SUAP SHAMPAA at all drug and department stores West End Laundry Lounderers and Dry Cleaners 123-25 Pennsyivania Ave-N-W- Phone Mai in 2321 of individ- uality— Exclusive models made in our own . . . made of finest pelts and priced moder- ately . . . Repairing and Remodeling Shaffer Fur Co. 1788 Columbia Rd. Breaks Head Colds A fewdropsof Nozol and your head and nose clears at once. Coldgermsarekilled of worse| colds and perhaps! grippe and flu pre- | ted. | to increase values, the present rate base | Nozolcostsonly afewcents—avoid stuff- that head cold— | wot uld remain unaltered.” 1 “The proposed contract provides that | the new company shall be entitled to| earn a reasonable rate of return (on the rate base), except that the present (Continued on Page 5, Column 3.) From the ed nasal passages—st g et prompt relief- o of colds start and lodge inthe nose and head—Nozol, Amer- ica’sNoseand Cold Remedy. Prescribed Chicago Journidl of Commerce e — The nationally-known writer, Mr. Glenn Gfiswold, writ- ing in the Chicago Journal of Commerce in its issue of November 2, 1928, in connection with Industrial Banking, says: under the supervision of the United States Treasury H MORRIS PLA| «And this reminds me that in these discussions we have overlooked the Morris Plan banks which, particularly in Chicago and generally throughout the country, are more important as social and civic than as financial institutions. «The Morris Plan Bank of Chicago is as much a the welfare work of the city as the Y. M. C. A. or the Red Cross, and yet there is nothing in the philosophy or the practice of the business that savors of charity.” rt of There is a Morris Plan Bank in Washington THE MORRIS PLAN BANK 1408 H Street N. W. Washington, D. C.. S ] by Physicians. At all druggists. ] W @] W & W S 6