The pioneer press. (Miller, Hand County, S.D.) 1893-190?, 1900-02-08

ses of carrying or it's business greater
than its receipts.
| IN the light of these general and OBJ
yious propositions we proceed to eX-
| anime the computations and reasoning
| Of tho court For reasons which will
be apparent hereafter we do not stop
| to inquire whether its findings are cor
rect deductions from the testimony
| hut take them as they are stated. IL
| may be promised That the books or the
plaintifi. shown. rs business for the
| four years. were examined, ana sc
much as was deemed necessary admit.
| ted in evidence.
WAS OVER BONDED.
From those books was disclosed with
mathematical accuracy the gross re-
ceipts of the company on all it's bust
! ness in all the states during each OF
| the four years and the actual cost OK
doing that business during each Of the
four years and the actual cost of doing
that business during each OF those
years: also the gross receipts from tho
business done in South Dakota, and
separately the amount which was re-
ceived in that state from interstate
business and that from local. If tho
schedule of rates prescribed by the de-
PENDANTS had been in force during tho
four years, and the same amount OF
business had been done by the COM
pany, the reduction of gross receipts
from the passenger business would
have been fifteen per cent, and from
the freight business seventeen per cent.
OF course, the cost of doing the bust
ness would be substantially the same.
The court found the value of the
plaintiffs property in South Dakota to
De $10,000,000 although, according to
he testimony it was bonded for over
i19,O00,000. 1t held that it was not
air to consider that sum, $10,000,000,
he value of the property employed in
loing local business, for it was also
Used in doing interstate business; and
hat the true way TO determine the
value of the property which could be
regarded as employed in local business
was by dividing the total value of $10,-
100000 in the same proportion that ex-
listed between the amount of gross re-
ceipts from interstate business and
that from local business, each of which
amounts was, as we have seen, accu
rately shown by the testimony.
Upon that basis of division it found
that the value of the company's prop
erty employed in local business was
by dividing the total value of 10000
GOO in the same proportion that exist
ed between the amount of gross re-
ceipts from interstate business and
that from local business, each of which
amounts was, as we have seen, accu-
rately shown by the testimony.
Upon that basis of division it found
that the value of the company's prop
erty employed in local business was
for the first year, $4,000 900; the second
year, S2,6O0,000; the third year $2,100,-
600, and the last year $4,000 900, and
also that the gross receipts from local
business were for the first year, 1876
per cent Of the valuation: for the sec
ond year, 1877 per cent; for the third
year, loo per cent, and for the last
year, 1853 per cent.
QUESTION OF EARNINGS.
In other words, for these several
years the company received as compen-
sation for doing it's local business the
per cent named of the real value of the
property used in doing that business.
Then, proceeding on the supposition
that the defendants schedule had been
in force and the rates reduced as there
In prescribed during these four years,
1t divided the valuation of $4,000, 600
OH the like proportion of the receipts
from interstate business to the receipts
from local business as thus diminished,
and upon such division found that the
valuation of the plaintiffs property
engaged In local business would have
been, for the first year, $1,90O, 0c0; for
the second year, $2,300,000; for the
third year, $1,800,000; and the last
year, 81 100000; and upon such basis
that the gross receipts from local bust
ness would have amounted to 10 per
cent OF the value of the property for
the first year, 12.1 for the second, 1873
for the third, and 1872 for the last. Up
on this 1t held that the difference be-
tween the per cent of receipts in the
two cases was slight, and that there
was no change in what may rightfully
be called the earning capacity of the
property sufficient to justify declara-
ton that the reduced rate prescribed
were unreasonable. In other words, it
was of the opinion that the earning
capacity was SO slightly reduced that
it would not be affirmed that the new
rates were unreasonable.
FALLACY IN REASONING.
But that there was some fallacy in
this reasoning would seem to be sug-
gested by the fact that although the
defendants schedule would have re-
duced the actual receipts Is per cent
on the passenger, and II per cent on
the freight business, the earning ca
pacity for the last year was diminish
ed only one-tenth of one per cent. Such
a result indicates that there is some
thing wrong in the process by which
the conclusion is reached. That there
was. can be made apparent by further
computations, and in them we will
take even numbers as more easy OF
comprehension. Suppose the total