Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1900-02-08
A BIG DIFFERENCE.

dollar SuCn 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. It Is ob-
Vious on a little reflection that the
cost OF moving local freight is greater
than that of moving through freight,
and equally obvious hat it is almost
If not quite impossible TO determine
the difference with mathematical &C
curacy.
Take a 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 m The amount Of freight
hauled per mile may be the same, but
he 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 81 varying and uncertain
that it would see quite out Of reach Co
make any accurate comparison Of the
relative cost. And IL thus is true
when there are two separate trains, il
is more so when the same train car
ries both local and through freight.
It is impossible to distribute between
the two the relative cost of carriage.
Yet that theirs is a difference is man
tfeSt, n upon such difference the
opinions OF experts familiar with rail-
road business Is competent testimony,
and cannot be disregarded.
LOCAL BUSINESS.
We think, therefore, there was error
in the failure to find the cost Of doing
the local business, and that only by a
comparison between the gross receipts
and the cost of doing the business, as
certaining thus the net earnings, can
the true effect Of the reduction of rates
be determined.
The question then arises what dispo-
sition OF the case shall this court
make. Ought we to examine the testi-
nony, find the facts, and from those
facts, deduce the proper conclusion?
IL would doubtless be within the
competency OF this court on an appeal
IN equity to do this, but We are con-
strained to think that it would not
particularly in a case like the presently
be the proper course to pursue. This is
an a~pppelate court, and parties have a
right TO a determination of the facts in
the first instance by the trial court.
Doubtless If such determination ia
challenged by either party then this
court need not go beyond its ordinary
appellate duty OF considering whether
such facts Justified the decree. We
think this Is one OF those cases in
which 1t is especially important that
there should be a full and clear finding
OF the facts by the trial court. The
questions are difficult, the interests are
vast, and therefor. the aid Of the trial
court should be had. The writer of
this opinion appreciates the difficulties
which attend a trial court in a case
this. In Smythe ". Ames, (supra,J
a similar case, he, as Circuit Justice
presiding in the Circuit Court OF Ne
hraska, undertook the work OF examin-
ing the testimony, making eomputa-
tons, and finding the facts. 1t was
very laborious, and took several weeks
IL was a work which really ought 10
lave been done by a master. Very
likely the practice pursued by him in
duced thetrfal judge in this case 10
personally examine the testimony and
make the findings.
COMPETENT MASTER.
We are all of opinion that a better
practice is to refer the testimony to
some competent master, TO make an