The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1898-08-11
RAILROAD Commission WINS.
Continued from lst page.

RAILROAD Commission WINS.
CONTINUED from lst page
and earn dividends for stockholders,
it is a misfortune for it AID them
which the constitution does not re-
quire to be Inns died by imposing
urj lst burdens u on the public. So
that the right Of the public to use
the defendants turnpike upon pay
ment of such tolls AS IN view of the
nature ard value Of the services rem
dered by the company are reason
able, is an clement in the general IN
quiry whether the rates established
by law are unjust and unreasonable
Must Recc gnize Public Rights.
"a corporation maintaining pub
lie highway, although it owns the
property it employs for accomplish
ing public objects. must be held to
have accepted its rights, privileges
and franchises subj ct to the condi
ton that the government creating it,
or the governm Mt within whose linn
its it conducts it's busin, SIS, may by
legislation protect the google against
unreasona BILE charges for the services
rendered by 1t. 1t cannot b. assumed
that any railroad corporation, &C
ceptlng franchises, rights and privi-
leges at the hands of the public, ever
supposed that it required or that it
was intended to grant to it. the
power to construct and maintain q
public highway simply for its bene-
fit without regard to the rights of
the public. But it Is equally true
that the corporation performing such
public services, and the people fnan-
cially interested in its business and
affairs, have rights that may not be
invaded by legislative enactment in
disregard of the fundamental guar
sntees for the prote ction of property.
The corporation may not be re-
quired to use its property for the
benefit of the public without rsceiv-
ing just compensation for the servi-
ces rendered by it,
Commission Can Reduce Rates.
This being the latest announce
ment by the supreme court upon this
question, it must be taken as the
law, and nowhere can 1t be gathered
from its language that the com
plainant has right to pay all Of its
fixed charges before the State can
regulate its charges for the carriage
of passengers and freight. The court
therefore dismissed the proposition
that the defendant railroad commits
sioners cannot reduce the present
schedule of rates and charges now ir
force upon the compliments lines
merely because it is shown that the
earnings therefrops do not pay the
indebtedness and operating expenses
of the complainant, as the complains
ant company itself never seems to
have been able to adopt schedule
that would accomplish that object,
nor, in face Of the record, can the
complainant claim that it ever adopt.
ed q schedule of rates and fares upon
its lines within the State of South
Dakota which were based upon the
value Of the services rendered. Mr.
Bird, general traffic manager of the
complainant, witness for the com
plainant, when upon the stand testi
fed as follows
What Dir. Bird said.
Il testified this morning that had
been in the service somewhat over
thirty years and had been engaged
in making rates during that time
andT never have yet had an oppor.
tunify of making a tariff on a basis
of W hat the service vas worth.
have never had the opportunity tt
determine the rate by the value OF
the services. Tie rates are made
what they must be.H
The Supreme Court in the case OF
smyth vs.. Ames. 100 U. s., SAG, de:
elared as follows: eve hold, how.
ev or, that the basis of sll calcula.
tons as to the reas0nableuess OF
rates to be charged by a corporation
mail tsining q highway under legis.
latiye sanction must be the fair value
Of the property being used by it for
the convenience Of the public. Ind
in order to ascertain that value, the
original cost Of construction, the
amount expended in permanent i'm
provement, the amount and market
value of its bonds and stock, the
present earning capacity Of the prop
erty under particular rates prescribed
by statute, and the sum required to
meet operating expenses ere all
matters for consideration and are to
be given sgch weight as may be just
and right in each case. We do not
say thst there may not be other mat
tiers to be regarded in estimating the
value of the property. What the
company is entitled to ask for is q
fair return upon the value of that
which it employs for the public con-
venienee. On the other hand, what
the public is entitled to demand is
that no more be exacted from it for
the use of public highway than the
services rendered by it are reason
ably WORTH
Here is the rule, and tho only cues
ton for the court now to ascertain is,
what is the fair present value of
the railroad property used by the
complainant in the State Of South
Dakota, upon which it is entitled to
earn what the services rendered are
reasonably WORTH"
No Direct Testimony.
There Is no direct testimony in the
record as to the present value of the