The pioneer press. (Miller, Hand County, S.D.) 1893-190?, 1897-09-16

Again IN the Minnesota case, the Uoi,a ID
states supreme court said: 1t is stated
that all charges must be reasonable. and
that none but reasonable charges can he
e~xacted; and it is urged that what is a
reasonable charge is a judicial question.
On the contrary, it is prc-eminently a leg
lslative one, involving consideration Of
policy as well as of remuneration, and i
usually determined by the legislature "
fixing a maximum of charges in the char.
ter OF the company, or afterwards, if its
hands are not tied by contract
Right III the face of these emphatic
and positive declarations from the highest
court in the land, it will be contended bv
corporation attorneys in this case that If
the rates fixed by the commissioners do
not yield d reasonable rate of interest on
the money invested, it will be the duty
of this court to declare those rates TO be
null and void
81 say no. This court has nothing to
do with the amount of profit any company
shall be allowed to make in this state.
Concede that the rates fixed will furnish
to either company any net profit what
ever, after paying taxes and operating
expenses and that company has no case
before this court.
"Such is the doctrine emphatically de-
clared and oft repeated by the highest
tribunal, and ! challenge this whole array
of corporation lawyers, every one of whom
l know to be a star in his line, to point
out a single paragraph in any opinion
rendered by a majority of the supreme
court that in the slightest degree recedes
from the rule / have stated"
Il know that one of the Judges, Brew.
err, sitting at circuit, has undertaken TO es-
tablish the rule that courts can interfere
when the rates do not yield a reasonable
income, and he defines a reasonable in.
come to be one that will pay all expenses
and the interest on the mortgage bonds.
THAT rule has not been adopted by
the supreme court, and il it ever is, good
bye, railroad commissioners. Your occu-
patton will then be gone. Whenever it is
decided that interest on the bonds must
be paid before your right to act begins,
there will never again be anything for
you to do in the line of fixing rates.
According to the allegations of the
complaint of the Chicago, Milwaukee and
st. Paul company, in this case, that COM
pany will have left after these rates are
put into effect a margin of at least , per
cent net profit, over and above operating
expenses and taxes, aad that by the most
liberal figuring that can be done in their
behalf.
Chat road, according to the rules es-
tablished, has no case in this court.
The attorney general then proceeded to
read from the very latest decision of the
United States supreme court, which fully
bear out the principles that he contends
for.
He then said that gross earnings of the
companies stated in the complaints to be
the gross earnings of the roads in this
state were not fairly made, as shown by
the schedules themselves.
More than so per cent, he said, of these
gross earnings, come from receipts on in
t~erstate traffic. The state is given credit
for its share of his interstate business ON
what is called the pro rata mileage
basis"
THAT is to say, if a company charges
500 for hauling a car of hogs from 4ank-
ton 10 Chicago, $50 miles, the state has
credit for such proportion of the 500 as
60 mics bears to $50, or about Sll. Such
he claimed was not a fair basis for such
credit. He claimed that the railroads
themselves, in dealing with each other, a
lowed to the company, holding the initial
point of the business done, much more
than a pro rata share OF the charges for
the entire haul
"He claimed that the roads in the state
were entitled TO credit for very near. if
not quite, a pro rata mileage share of the
entire net earnings of the who'c system
of which the road in the state was a part.
In support of that doctrine he read from
United States supreme court decision, as
follows: In this state Of facts, we agree
with the views of the supreme court of
Arkansas, as disclosed in the opinion con-
tanned in the record, and which were to
the effect that the correct test was as
to the effect of the act on the defendants
entire line, and not upon that part which
was formerly a part of one of the conso'i-
dating roads; that the company canno
claim the right to earn a proGt from every
mile. section, or other part in which the
road might be divided, nor attack as UNI
just n regulation which fixed a rate at
which some such part would be unrenu-
lucrative; that it would be practically inn
possible to ascertain i'll what proportion
the several parts shou'd share with others
in the expenses and receipts in which
they participated; and, finally. that to the
extent that the question of injustice is to
be determined by the effects Of this act
upon the earnings of the company, the
earnings of the entire line must be esti-
mated AZ against all its legitimate cxpens-
es under the operation of the act within
the limits of the state of Arkansas st.
Louis and San Francisco Railroad CON-
pany, VS.. Gill, l56 L. 5. 573.
"The true value of a line OF railroad is
something more than an aggregation of
the values of separate parts, operated sep
arately. 1t is the aggregate of those We
ues, plus that arising from a connected
operation of the whole, and each part Of
the road contributes not merely the value