The pioneer press. (Miller, Hand County, S.D.) 1893-190?, 1900-02-08
..a..h af nronertu earns s100 GOO Il


| cal business are only one-fifth of what
| they were, the earning capacity is
three-fifths of what ii was And turn
ing to the other side OF the problem,
il appears that If the value of the
property engaged in interstate bust
ness is to be taken as $S,333,OOO, and 1t
! earned $500 900, its earning capacity
was the same as that employed in To-
| cal business-six per cent. So that al
| though the rates for interstate BUSH
ness be undisturbed, the process by
which the trial court reached its con-
| clusion discloses the same reduction In
| the earning capacity of the property
employed in interstate business as in
that employed in local business, in
| which the rates are reduced.
STILL ANOTHER ERROR.
Again, in another way, the error of
! the courts computation is manifested
! The testimony discloses that the ope-
| rating expenses of the entire system
! during each of the four years were
over 60 per cent of the gross receipts.
| If the cost of doing Iocal business in
! South Dakota was the same as that Of
! doing the total business of the compa-
| ny then the net earnings of that local
! business would not exceed 40 per cent
| of the gross receipts. Reduce the gross
| receipts Is per cent-and the reduction
! by the defendants rates was Is per
! cent on passengers and II per cent on
| freight business-it would leave only
25 per cent of the gross receipts as
what might be called net earnings, to
be applied to the payment of interest
or bonds and dividends on stock. But
the testimony shows that the cost o.
doing local business is much greater
than that of doing through business.
If it should be So per cent of the gross
receipts land there was testimony
tending to show that it was much if
not more) then reduction Of 15 per
cent in the gross receipts would leave
the property earning nothing more
than expenses of operation. These COM
putations show that the method which
the court pursued was erroneous and
that without a finding as to the cost
of doing the local business it is impos-
rates prescribed by the defendant were
unreasonable or not.
But here we are confronted by the
ninth statements in the findings of
fact, to wit, that the court is unable
to find from the testimony what the
actual cost of earning the local earn
irgs for the fiscal years ending June
80, 1874, 1895, 1896 and 1897 was" IL
the court meant by that to say that
there was no testimony tending to
show what was the cost of doing local
business, we are constrained to say
that the statement is erroneous, be-
cause there was abundance of testi-
mcny bearing upon that question. If
termine that fact with mathematical
accuracy, basing IL upon testimony OF
the exact amount OF money paid out for
doing such work, il Is undoubtedly true
it meant simply that it could not de-
but there are many things that have
to be determined by court and jury in
respect to which mathematical accur-
acy is not possible. Take the ordinary
case of condemnation of real estate,
the value Is to be determined by the
trial tribunal, whether jury or court,
and yet no one is able to state the
exact value. In this very case the
court fixed the value of the company's
property in South Dakota at $4,000
900, and yet it is impossible from the
testimony to say that this conclusion
was absolutely accurate, that there
was testimony tending to show to a
dollar such value.
A BIG DIFFERENCE.
Beyond the figures given from the
books of the company of the actual
cost Of doing the total business of the
company there was the testimony of
several experts as to the relative cost
of doing local and through business.
Such testimony is not to be disregard
ed simply because it cannot demon
strate by figures the exact amount of
per cent of the extra cost 1t Is OBJ
vious on little reflection that the
cost OF moving local freight is greater
than that of moving through freight,
and equally obvious that 1t is almost
! IL not quite impossible to determine
| the difference with mathematical ac-
| curacy.
Take single line of 100 miles, with
| ten stations. One train starts from
one terminus with through freight and
goes to the other without stop. A sec
ond train starts with freight for each
intermediate station. The mileage is
the same. The amount of freight
hauled per mile may be the same, but
the time taken by the one is greater
than that taken by the other. Addi-
tional fuel is consumed at each sta
ton where there is a stop. The wear
and tear OF the locomotive and cars
from the increased stops and in shift
ing cars from main to side tracks is
greater; there are the wages of the
employees at the intermediate stations.
the cost of insurance, and these ele-
ments are so varying and uncertain
that 1t would see quite out of reach to
make any accurate comparison of the
relative cost. And if thus is true
when there are two separate trains, it
is more so when the same train car
ries both local and through freight.
1t is impossible to distribute between
the two the relative cost of carriage
Yet that there is a difference is man
ifest, and upon such difference the
opinions of experts familiar with rail-
road business is competent testimony,
and hn LoI