upr000061 161

tMr. Mol&mee; . # 1 April 1, 1 9 3 2 . rb f6.60* 2a the ©see of creameries, where no old rate wee shown, our basis of charge was the ‘store* rate of %1*00; the sew rate was #£*00, In addition to the obarge for refrigera­tion* Garages under the old schedule were charged on the *store” basis of #1*00; the new rate provided fS.GO. pine a f£*00 charge for wash rack* In some instances, we found oar old rate so high that it was practically oat of the Question to a ek for on in­crease; for example, toilets and baths, the rate on which was E5 cents each, and no increase was requested* Boring the years 1922-1929, there was an excessive charge to Operating expenses covering replacements of water lines here in Las Vegas# as noted on monthly balance sheets furnished by our Accounting Bepartmentj for example la 1922. £6,863.77; in 1924, #18.748*32; in 1926, #17,643*99, and others. It is ray opinion that inasmuch as depreciation had been accrued for yeart on this property, the charge should have been to that account, or when Improvements were made, to Investment or Capi­tal Aooount. However, X suggest that you refer this matter to Mr* Barry, auditor, in order that you may get correct Infomo­tion regarding expenses shown in 1r* Cray a letter* Also in Mr. Cray * a exhibit, he re-stated the expenses on use of Hail road facilities back as far as 1927* it would be impossible for as to go before the Commission and hope to convince them that we should be granted rates based on an ex­hibit of this kind, as they have at their disposal our annual reports which ©how what we actually paid the Hailroad Company* If X can be of any further astistanoe, please write me* Tours very truly, ea - Mr* .f* 8* Knickerbocker, Mr* Leo A* MoBsmee* HTfSITSbM.ce mt Vice 2resident and Agent*