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

Idoine the total business OF the compa,
nv tben the net earnings of that iocui
hvSiness would not exceed Az per cehI
- The gross receipts. Reduce the gross
sooaints * por cent-and the reduction
hv he defendants rates was 10 per
cent on passengers and - per cene
freight ~business--it Woula lease
On per cent of the gross receipls a.
what might be called net earHinSa, "
he anplied to the payment OF lnIeIeSt
on bonds and dividends on stoch' huS
the testimony shows that the cosC v.
| doing local business is much greater
than that of doing through business,
II II should be IS per cent OF the sLoSs
receipts land there was tesIiiiohy
tending to show that 1t was much II
not morel then a reduction or 10 per
cont in the gross receipts would lea'e
the nroperty earning nothing more
than expenses OF operation. These com
mutations show that the method Which
tho court pursued was erroneous anu
hat without a finding as 10 the COST
of doing the local business It is lmpos-
sible to determine whether the reuuceu
rates prescribed by the defendant were
unreasonable or not.
Rut here we are confronted by the
ninth statements in the findings OF
fact. to wit, that the court IS unaole
10 find from the testimony what the
actual cost of earning the local earn
ings for the fiscal years ending June
On 1Q4 1895, 1896 and 1897 was" II
the court meant by that to say that
there was no testimony tendlng 10
show what was the cost or doing local
business, we are constrained 10 say
that the statement is erroneous, pc
cause there was abundance or testl-
mcny bearing upon that question: II
termine that fact with mathematical
accuracy, basing it upon testimony OF
the exact amount Of money paid out FOR
doing such work, it is undoubtedly true
il meant simply that It could not de-
but there are many things that have
to be determined by court and jury III
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 $l0,0OO,-
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 1t cannot demon
strate by figures the exact amount OF
per cent of the extra cost. 1t Is OBJ
vious on a little reflection that the
cost of moving local freight is greater
than that OF moving through freight,
and equally obvious that it is almost
II not quite impossible to determine
the difference with mathematical ac-
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 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
onI faar re tha lNoNr,nt;y. oxl znu
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 it would see quite out of reach t.
make any accurate comparison Of the
relative cost. And If thus is true
when there are two separate trains, il
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 tn
opinions Of experts familiar with rail
road business Is competent testimony
and cannot be disregarded.
LOCAL BUSINESS.
We think, therefore, there was erro
in the failure to find the cost OF dom.
the local business, and that only by
comparison between the gross receipt
and the cost Of doing the business, as
%certaining thus the net earnings. cal
the true effect of the reduction of rate
be determined.
The question then arises what dispo
sition OF the case shall this cour
make. Ought we to examine the testi
mony, find the facts, and from thos
facts, deduce the proper conclusion?
1t would doubtless be within IN
competency Of this court on an appea
in equity to do this, but we are con
strained to think that it would no
particularly in a case like the present
be the proper curse to pursue. This /
an appellate court, and parties have
right to a determination of the facts +
the first instance by the trial court
Doubtless If such determination /
challenged by either party then tbi
court need not go beyond its ordinar
appellate duty of considering whetbe
such facts justified the decree. w
think this is one OF those cases i
which il ia esneciallv imnorton. A.