St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-07-06


endeavoring to ascertain. the amount
on which they are entitled to draw in
terest. The state gave them the right
to build the roads instead of building
them ITSELF
Mr.. GroVer-Suppose the state were
appraising the roads to take possession
| of them under the exercise of the right
of eminent domain? ~
"Then there would be no question but
that they would have to be paid for
on the basis of their present value,
. responded the attorney general, but
the question as tothe amount on which
they are entitled to a return is quite
different thing" 80
; 1.-The supreme court makes no dis
tinction between the taking of prop
erty without compensation and the
taking 'of thu use of it, retorted
Attorney Grover.
"Well, 1 cannot assent to the propo-
sition that the roads are entitled to
| interest on their present value. 1t is
repugnant toI my sense of Justice said
Mr.. Childs. Continuing, he said: 1.-THE
question of rates is always a very diff
cult thing to determine The courts
are all disposed to consider every case
in itself, taking into account all the
various circumstances to arrive at a
knowledge of
WHAT A FAIR RATE IS.
eff this principle had been applied by
the Great Northern company, it would
never have brought this case into
court, but would have accepted a re-
duction Of rates to meet the present
condition of the farmers. Farmers
have been losing money raising
wheat"
Judge Kerr heard the same thing
from Central and Southern Minnesota
twenty-five years ago, but since they
have been engaged in diversified farnl-3
ing there is no more prosperous class
of farmers in the country.
Il agree with your honor's opinion
as to the desirability of diversified
farming returned Mr.. Childs, land
that is what it must come to up north,
but we must take the conditions as we
find them, and I submit that these peo-
pie are entitled to some considerations
Il agree With you in that respond
ed the court.
Then we will discuss the question
no farther" said the attorney general,
with a smile.
Mr.. Childs then went into the ques-
commerce, contending that the mileage
basis was the only fair one, and re-
ferring 20 the testimony of one of the.
Northern Pacific officials to bear out
his assertion. If $100. was paid for
hauling a car of shingles from Puget
sound to st. Paul, every mile Of road
over which it passed was entitled to
credit for the same portion of this
har
Of the fact that certain parts of the
line farther west may have cost a
great deal more than the line in this
state.
Judge Kerr-Suppose the line west of
the boundary of this state were owned
by another company and we were try
ing to divide the earnings, would the
mileage basis be fair?
IN case of that kind there would
be joint tariff returned the at
torney.
Inc Court-Suppose the interstate
commerce commission were endeavor-
ing to fix rate from the western
boundary of North Dakota 20 Si;pe-
rior, would it not take into considera-
ton the cost of transportation in the
respective states?
No; it would not consider. state
lines, but would consider all the con-
ditions surrounding the line for the
whole distance
Mr.. Childs, in conclusion said the
Northern Pacific had no standing in
court in the case at all-had no BUSH
ness there.
The Court-Then why has the SUI
preme court, while denying, it thefright
to intervene, given it the right. to he
heard hear, and why has the railroad
commission given it that right? -
1T is simply given the right to
come in and be heard the same as 1t
might go before a committee if1vesti-
eating the question of rates, the pur-
pose being to give the court full
knowledge of all the circumstances
replied Mr.. Childs. =,
Has the court right to take into
account the facts submitted by this
company" :.
+Only so far as they apply to the
reasonableness of rates on the Great
Northern
-