upr000283 179

s nothing can be treated as evidence duced as such*. which is not intro­nSee, also, United'States v.‘Abilene & Southern LR.y . EdCo..',1 01266,5 aUl.s o S.U ni27t4e,d pSatgaet e.s2-3v9., L4o4s S.A ngCte.l e5s6'&5 , S.6'3L . R7.1 LC.o .,E d.2 7365'1U,; wS.h er2e9 9i, t pwaages 31h2e,l d 4t7h aSt. C’td.a ta41 3c,o ll41e5c,ted btiyg atthei onC ocmomnisstsiitount ea s ora dipanratr iloyf ietvsi denfcuen ctsiuofnf icoif enitn vteos­support an order, if the data are duly made part of t(hIet alrieccso rdc uirns Ttph’ e case in which the order is en“t*ered.’ Public service commissions, like Courts, are entitled to take judicial notice of certain facts of common notoriety. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has held that the order of a public service commission cannot be supported upon the basis of facts which it can judicially notice unless the facts which it judicially notices are spread on the record in the case so that the utility will have an opportunity to dispute the fact noticed if it considers it to be disputable. This was decided in the case of Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utili­ties Commission, 301 U. S. 292 in which the Supreme Court re­versed the decree of the Ohio State Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed ah order of the State Public Utilities Commission fixing the rates of the Telephone Company. After the conclusion of a hearing involving valuation of the property of the Tele­phone Company, the Commission, by resorting to cost trends taken from price indices of the Engineering News Record and other re­liable sources, had attempted to find the values of the property of the utility in various years. An attempt was made to uphold the order of the Commission on the ground that the decision was -25-