The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1898-08-11

improved my general health"
complainant's railroad property IN
the State of South Dakota. There 10
testimony IS to the original cost of
rolling stock bought years ago; there
Is testimony as to the original cost Of
steel rails bought yGAIs ago, and
there is estimated cost of a good
many articles of property, by the
officers of the company, but in no
case does any witness swear to the
present actual value of any piece of
property owned and operated in the
State Of South Dakota by the COM
plainant company. The only way
that the court can get at the reason
ably fair value of the compliments
property, used and operated a. afore-
said. is by estimating, might say
guessing, just as the witnesses of the
complainant have estimated and
guessed as to its value. The court
was inclined at one time to be OF the
opinion that it was unable, from the
testimony, to ascertain what the fair
present value of the complainant's
property in South Dakota WAS in
view of the conflicting statements
of Witnesses called upon that uestion
and the great disparity between the
value Of the property fixed by the
company for the purpose of this suit
and the value Of the same property
fixed for purposes of taxation. But
the court has carefully examined
the testimony introduced in regard
to the value of the property in ques-
ton, and after considering all the
circumstances and ircide ats, under
the rules of the Supreme Court
which should govern the court in
fixing the value, the )urt is unable
to find that the present fair value Of
the complainant's property In the
State of South Dakota used for rail-
road purposes, is to exceed ten mil
millions Of dollars. II Is true that
the record shows that the property
is bonded and mortgaged for an
amount largely in excess of this sum,
but the amount of a mortgage upon
property is no evidence of itg value,
and therefore, is not worthy OF con-
sideration. Neither is the fact that
a railroad company bought engines
ala certain price 10 or Is years
ago binding evidence that the en-
gines now sse Worth dollar, in the
absence CT any testimony as to where
they have been used, how they have
| bsen Kept, and what their present
| condition Is. The record fairly
shows that it is not the new proper
ty Of the complainant company that
is used in South Dakota. This be-
ing fixed by the court a. the fair
and reasonable value of the COM
plainant's railroad property, what
would be reasonable sum for it to
charge for the services which it
Fenders tothe publicf The Supreme
Court ia the GASP CITED says; that the
State in fixing its sche dule OF rates
| and fares for the transportation of
passengers and freight, csunot
consider and charge against the
company lis interstate earnings. We
are compelled to adopt this mode of
proceeding because it is the law pre-
scribed by court which makes the
law for this court. And while the
complainant com pany strenuouslv in
sist upon the enforcement Of this
! rule, it as vigorously insists that
the per cent which the State may al
low the Complainant 70 earn must
be figured upon the total value Of Its
property. because all the business in
the State of South Dakota trans
acted by the complainant, Is local
business. with the exception Of an
occasional train from Chamberlain
4 or an occasional train of wheat from
. Eureka, and therefore all the cost
| Of operation sho.!d be charged to
| the local earning3. IN othef words
that although for tho four fiscal
yesrs ending June 80, 1894, 1895,
1896 and 1897, respectively, tie in
terstate earnings in the State Of
South Dakota we're 5000. 6S2. p,
still the State cannot charge against
the road these interstate EARNINGS
but may charge against the road it,
local earnings. the percentage Of 10.
cal earnings to be figured on tho total
value of the property, thus leaving
any burden: Is this faiif Is
it just for the company to say to
the State Of Sogth b.kot. thai
"While it is trne that in the foRr
years mentioned We have armed On
interstate business in the State of
South Dakota tho sum Of $4.O28,.
1921. still you cannot charge
that against us. but you can only
charge your Iocaf earnings fggreA
on the total valuation Of your prop.
erty 1910, 0Qe. 600, and that the local
earnings OF such > small percentage
Of the total value Of the railroad in
South Dakota, does not give the
company what the servives are reas-
onably WORTH"
The argument for the company is
that the FcoHrt cannot separate the
value of tho property With refer
enee to the earnings, but 1t requires
all the property and all the msckia-
cry and all the labor to earn the To-
cal earnings. Admitting this to be
so, It still Sepaips that during the
years which tie court has mentioned.
the company earned, in interstate
business by tho use Of this property
and under the franchises granted to
it by the State Of South DAkots, the
sum of 4,026, 6S2, 81. So that it 10
entirely unjust to make the local
earnings bear the whole burden by
ascertaining the per cent Of the total