ELEMENTS WHICH REDUCE VALUE 83
made subject to the approval of competent representatives of
those who are ultimately to pay the bills, and, in that case,
there would be no question as to the propriety of including
property held for future use. The only question would be
whether the present rates should yield interest on the full in-
vestment in such property or whether the owner should be
required to carry the same, in whole or in part, for the benefit
of the community until such time as the greater demand for
the service and consequent greater earnings will justify the in-
clusion of the property at cost, plus interest, plus such addi-
tional amount as may be thought a fair profit allowance to
the owner in each particular case. Approval of this character
in the past has been out of the question. To a large extent it
will be impractical, too, in the future. It frequently happens
that the purpose of the acquisition of property must be kept
under cover, because, if disclosed, the prices would become
prohibitive. For this reason the publicity incidental to a pre-
liminary approval by representatives of the public would often
prove embarrassing. It will no doubt be suggested that con-
demnation proceedings should be resorted to whenever prop-
erty is to be acquired for the use of a public utility. No one
who is familiar with the conduct and results of such proceedings
in the courts of this country would be willing to admit the ad-
visability of this procedure in all cases. The jury which is re-
quired to base its findings on the evidence submitted in such
proceedings frequently reaches conclusions that are not fair.
Not until value of the property taken, and the amount of dam-
age to remaining property, is made determinable by impartial
experts, not selected by the litigants but appointed by the
courts, will there be any hope of securing through court pro-
ceedings, at a reasonable cost, the rights and properties that
may be required by public utilities.
Discussion of Overbuilt Plants by the Wisconsin R. R. Com-
mission. — In the discussion of the value of the LaCrosse Gas
and Electric Co. properties the Wisconsin R. R. Commission says
(Wis. R. C. R,, Vol. 2, p. 5):
