The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1893-04-06
RAILWAY ACCOUNTS.
The Views of California Railroad
Commissioner on the Subject.

The Views of California Railroad
Commissioner on the Subject.
Hon. Allen Fort of Georgia, Chairman
of the Committee on Uniformity of Rail
way Accounts for the annual conference
of Railroad Commissioners, to meet in
Washington soon, the other day sent a
letter to California Railroad Commits
sioner William Beckman of this city, who
is a member Of that committee, asking
him to meet with that committee at
Washington, April l4th, and if he could
not do so, to submit his views in writing
To the committee.
Mr.. Beckman not being certain that he
can attend the conference has placed his
views on uniformity of railway accounts
in writing, and that his own constituency
may know just what his position is, and
what he does in his semi-otficial capacity
furnishes the press with the reply he
makes to Mr.. Fort for submission to the
committee:
Hon. AUe1l Fort, Chairman of the Com
mitee Of Uniformity Of RdilaodV 4 ccou7ats.
atlanta, Gd.-DEAR SIR: AS | am not
certain that | will be in Washington at
our next meeting, L herewith send you
my views upon the uniformity of railway
accounts.
In the proceedings of the fourth annual
convention. which was held in Washing
| ton, in April, 1892, on page II ct seq, APP
pears the report of the Committee on
Uniformity of Railway Accounts. This
committee Investigated With great care
one question which seems to me of much
importance, namely: the attempt to dis
| tribute operating expenses OF railroads to
show the cost of freight service separately
from the cost of passenger service. On
this question the report of the committee
was unanimous (See page IS of proceed
| ings) in favor of disseminating this at
tempted apportionment in the form of
| reports prescribed upon which railways
are required to report to the commissions
| l heartily agree with the conclusion of
the committee on this question. 1t is
| clearly apparent to any one who investi-
gates the subject, that at least 60 per cent.
in amount of the items comprising
| operating expenses cannot be located as
! chargeable either to passenger service or
to freight service, and any distribution
| under these two headings must be on a
| basis more or less arbitrary; and if a
| basis be prescribed by the Interstate Com
merce Commission or the convention
to apply to all the railroads i'll the
| United States with their varying con-
| ditions as to passenger traffic and of
! freight traffic, it must in a great many
cases produce results extremely erron-
| eouS. Such conclusion, | think, is
demonstrated by the figures published in
! the third annual report on statistics by
! the Interstate Commerce Commission for
| the year ending June 80, 1890, on page II
| of which it is shown that all the railroads
in group and in group are conducting
! their passenger business at loss. That
! the railroads should continue rates with
this result is hardly to be supposed. The
conclusion seems therefore inevitable
that the statistics published by the COM
mission are erroneous.
| If wnnld he nf pVpppHinCr1U do
srable to divide the expenses so as to
show the cost of freight and passenger
service separately if this We're possible;
but as it is not possible, any effort to do
so arbitrarily must cast discredit on all
| the figures fur nished by the Interstate
! Commerce Commission or the State Rail-
road Commissions which use the same
form of blank.
| Some OF the roads also decline to make
| this distribution of their expenses acting
under the advice of counsel, on the
ground that the law cannot compel an
| lmpossiblllty; and it is an impossibility
| to show separately the expenses of con-
Quoting the freight business and the pas
| senger business. My experience and the
| study of this question convinces me that
as long as the requirement for this divis-
ion is persisted in, it will act as a STUN
! bling block in the way of the adoption of
| uniformity OF railway aeeegats=fer the
railroads of the country, and defeat that
very desirable end which it is one of the
purposes of the Convention of Railroad
Commissions to attain.
The effort on the part of the committee
representing the Association of Ameri-
can Railway Accounting officers, who
were present at the Washington conven-
ton IN 1892, to secure changes in the
classification of operating expenses alter
ing the titles of number of the accounts,
and changing the definitions, l earnestly
oppose. The classification of operating
expenses as prescribed by the Interstate
Commerce Commission some years ago,
and which has been adopted now by prac-
tically all the State Railroad Commissions
in the country, and conformed to by the
greater number OF railways, 1 see no good
reason for changing, and any effort in this
direction will serve to defeat the estab-
lishment of uniformity of railway ac-
counts. a large number of railways have
adopted this prescribed classification of
operating expenses in keeping the ac-
counts of their companies-this demon
strating the practicability of the system.
and 1 think that such roads as have thus
fully accepted the rules prescribed by the