upr000283 193

ifying its action. Unless it does so, its decision will be set aside by a reviewing Court, In the case of Mew 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: 5,It 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.t? In the case of Central R. Co. v. Dept, of Public Utili­ties , $1A (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 ings of facts below are essential riunl er aties tchaaste s fainndd­may not be supplied by implication'. N.J. Bell Tel.Co; 7v.5 A C2odm m7un2i1c) atsiupornas; WoCrokleorrsa,d o eWtyc.o,m in(g5 GaNs.J .C o,a t v.p agFee de3r75a,l P. Comm., 324 U.S. 626, 65 S.Ct.’$50, $9 L.Ed. 1235 (1945); Wichita Railroad & L'. Co. v. Public Utilities C(o1m9.2,2 ).2 60' SUe.e S.4 3 4^A,m . 43J r.S,; CtP,u bl5i1,c U6t7i lL.i tiEed.s a12n4d, Se1r3v0i ces, Usteci.l i1t$y4 ,& pS.e rv6.9 5,C o.s ecv.. 'P2u21b,l icp . Ut7i1l$,i tMite.s CCaormmmiesls iPounb,: 297 I1n11 .t he3 03c,a se1 30o f NN..EJ.. 6B93e,l l 21T elA.. L.CRo.. v5.7 1 Co(m1m1u1n.iScuapt.iCotn.s1921). Workers, etc., supra, we have recently been called upon to examine this phase of the problem and have said: !M 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-