upr000063 66

\ There is a substantial record in this case. The Water Company made a complete disclosure of the basic facts relating to its operations and of those of the Railroad Com­pany to enable the Commission to decide the case. The evi­dence submitted by the Water,Company was in more detail than the evidence which is ordinarily introduced in such cases. Evidence based upon the books and records kept by a public service company is entitled to a presumption of correctness. At the hearing, neither the Commission or any party questioned the authenticity of recorded figures, nor did the Commission indicate any desire to have additional evidence on any point. The evidence submitted by the Water Company was \ more than sufficient to justify the increases sought, and no further hearing is needed in this case to enable the Com­mission to furnish the petitioner with proper relief if the Commission will carefully and fairly consider the existing record. Nevertheless, we do not wish to foreclose a further hearing on any point if the Commission does not think it has sufficient evidence on that point. For that reason we have made this petition in the alternative for a reconsideration or for a rehearing. However, we cannot emphasize too strong­ly that it will be most unfair to the petitioner and constit­ute an unlawful taking of.its property without due process of law if the Commission fails to afford the petitioner imme­diate and substantial additional relief upon the record al­ready made. This should be done first, and if the Commission >i -16*