upr000283 175

N maintain its rights or make its defense. In no other ? way can it test the sufficiency-port the finding; for otherwise, ofe vtehne t hfoaucgths^ itto sapuppe­ared fthiacti enthcey coorudlerd waalsw aywsi tbheo ute xpelvaidiennecde , ont hteh em antihfeeosrty tdhea­t the Commission had before it extraneous, unknown, but presumptively sufficient information to support the finding. United States v;. Baltimore & O.S.W.R.Co., 226 U.S. 14, ante, 104, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 5. !,As these contentions of the government must be overruled, it is necessary to examine the record with a view of determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the order.” The Supreme Court examined the record in the case and found that the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and therefore was lawful. However the principles of law an­nounced in that decision still stand as the guide-post which a public service commission must follow in proceedings effecting rates of public utilities. In the case of West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, decided January 7, 1935, reported in 294 U.S. 63, the United States Supreme Court reversed a decree of the Ohio Supreme Court affirming a rate order of the State Public Utili­ties Commission on the ground that in several respects the Com­mission’s order was not based upon the evidence in the case. One of the issues in the case involved the allocation of the dis tribution expenses among the various areas served by the utility Eight months after the testimony in the case had been closed, the Commission conceived the thought that some of the distribu­tion costs should be allocated to customers other than those whose rates were involved in the hearing. Accordingly, by an -21-