The Saint Paul globe., 1897-10-21

or not the verdict of jury is excessive, and
to what extent.
5. On appeal from the commission the
court should take judicial notice of all those
general matters of which the commission
should have knowledge, and on which it
would act without proof thereof, made on
formal hearing.
6. Evidence examined in the light of the
courts findings, for the purpose of ascertain
Ing what 1t would cost to reproduce the
terminals of the Great Northern system at
Minneapolis and st. Paul, and what it would
cost to reproduce the rest Of the lines of
their system within this state.
7. Where the market price of urban or
suburban property in or near rapidly grow
ing city Is higher than is warranted by any
annual income which can be obtained from
any use to which the property can at present
be put. and such excess in market, value is
caused by the anticipation of still higher
prices in the future;
Held reasonable annual income on the
cost of reproducing railroad terminals out Of
such property, is less than reasonable in
come the cost of reproducing other por-
tions of the road which, when reproduced,
are not likely to increase in value.
Held, the public and not the courts must
be the judge of whether not such property
will increase in value in the future and, If so,
how much.
What is the lowest rate of annual income
on the cost of reproducing such terminals IN
Minneapolis and St. Paul, which the courts
would uphold as not being confscatory, is
not decided; but7it is held that net income
of 21a per cent per annuIn on such cost was
under the circumstances liberal income.
g. The great fall in the last few years in
rates of interest and in what are reasonable
rates of income on capital invested, noticed,
and the reasons for such fall stated; held,
net income Of per cent in 1894, on the cost
of reproducing all of said railroads, except
the terminals, not, under the c1rcum-
stances, unreasonable confscatory.
9. The railroad lines in question extend be-
yond the state, and for the purpose Of determ-
within this state, the different methods pro-
| posed by counsel for apportioning the gross
earnings amongst the states is considered.
rs Te gpess eaS s On state tue and into
other states should not be apportioned on
the mileage basis, as that would give Min
nesota the benefit of the higher rates, which
the carrier is entitled to charge in the more
thinly settled country further west, where
the traffic is lighter.
Held further, such gross earnings cannot
be apportioned on the theory that the patrons
OF the part of the lines within this state are
not entitled to the benefit which should
| naturally come to them from the fact that
| just beyond the borders of this state there is
a large area of fertile territory which fur
nishes a large amount of railroad traffic,
which co-operates with similar traffic within
| than they otherwise would be, and railroad
which extended from st. Paul or Minneapolis
or Duluth to the west line of the state and
| there terminated without connections or feed
ers beyond, would not be enterprise
planned conducted on business principles.
10. When any feeder or extension, portion
brance on the rest of the line or system, so
that the rest of the line or system would, at
| the same rates, produce more net income II
such portion did not exist; that is, If all
the gross earnings on all the traffic passing
over such portion and on the whole length
of the haul on such traffic will not pay the
operating expenses on such traffic for the
whole length of such haul, and pay for the
wear and tear on the line or system caused
by such additional traffic, and also pay
reasonable income on the cost OF reproduc
Of
dftfons are not of a 9temporary character
but are the result of building the feeder
or extension where there was not sufficient
business to Justify its existence, then such
portion of the lines is not self-supportlng
but is an incumbrance on and not feeder
of the rest of the line or system, and in de-
termining what reasonable rates for the
rest Of the line or system, such portion
may be rejected.
Held. under the statute the burden was on
the railway company to show that the west
ern portion of its line was self-supporting.
IL. Held, under the statute the burden
on the railway company to show what
portion of the gross earnings on through
business should be apportioned to Minnesota;
that it failed to maintain this burden, and
on the evidence therefore, failed to prove
that the rates fixed by the commission are
| confiscatory.
| H. The evidence examined for the pur-
| pose of ascertaning as near as possible the
| cost of reproducing the whole of the lines
| and terminals and held, that the income on
the same in 1894. with the rates as reduced
| by the commission, would produce TWO ana
| one-half per cent net income on the cost of
reproducing the terminals and per cent net
| income on the cost of reproducing the rest of
| the road, and that under the circumstances
| the same is a fairly liberal income.
49, There are a number of feeders and
portions of railroad lines which are separately
| incorporated, but which, in fact, form parts
| of the railway system OF the Great Northern
Railway company; there is also steamship
line on the great lakes and a very valuable
coal mine in Montana. each of which is sep
| arately incorporated; all or nearly all, of the
| stock of each of these other corporations is
owned by the Great Northern Railway COM
| pany and it or its officers manage and con-
troll all of these other corporations; the
on the division of profits business in
which it and the Great Northern Railway
! company are jointly concerned, and such di-
vision is mere matter of bookkeeping; some
| of these other corporations appear by the
| reports of the Great Northern company to
| have made very large net profits during the
| year in question.
| Held. the burden was on the Great North
! ern Railway company in this case to show
that the division of profits between it and
| these other corporations was fair and reason
| able, and it failed to maintain that burden.
Order reversed and new trial granted.