Omaha daily bee., 1902-07-18

board and told It what II should do and
what a franchise Is. and that II ought to
assess II. II IL true that II, even I-Mr.
Rosewater," appeared before the board and
told II what Il ought to do in this ~particu-
lar, and that II ought to assess the fran
chises. and II is true that the board did
not comply, as is said, with their re-
quests. Is hat fraud7 Perhaps It had
some doubt as TO the ability Of these gem
tlemen, or as to their knowledge, or as
to their information with reference to the
question involved. The fact is they
wanted this board to assume all knowl-
edge and Information relating to what Is
now one OF the most serious and debatable
of questions. PublIclsts. %jurists, courts
and boards are all at ''sixes and sevens''
as to what a franchise" really L.; as to
whether It creates any value or not; as to
whether II Is simply q mere power and not
an element of property OF value, or
whether II can create any value.
The very cases these gentlemen rely upon
and cite In their brief in the United States
supreme court sre but the result Of a d.
vtded court. And, further, in the estima-
tion Of some Of the ablest members OF the
court. in one OF the greatest dissenting
opinions ever written, some Of the princi-
ples commended for here are enied The
personnel Of that court, which is subject to
change at any time, may change that rule
and change the application Of these princi-
pies. So, when these gentlemen assumed
all information and all knowledge before
the board and attempted to educate It, the
board had the right to exercise it's Judgment
In regard to that, and It's refusal was not
fraud. 1t had the right to question the
knowledge and information Of Mr. Rose
| ~ far TnR tnGtonoA 4Aa-A 1919 49,.
been something before the board at that
time that 1t knew Mr.. R~osewater was not
informed upon, as we know now that he has
appeared before this court to give informa-
ton In reference to certain properties and
as to certain questions involved, and yet,
upon cross-e1amination here, this educator,
acting as an informef here and as one to
advise, says, II don't even know how the
properties, the shops or terminal facilities
In the city OF Omaha are assessed, whether
locally or by the state board" and gave his
opinion as to the value OF these terminals.
and yet admitted that he had not seen the
new shops. So, because this board refused
to comply with their request. or said It
doubted their ability and doubted the ques-
tions and objections that were raised, is
that fraudH
Or Is It fraud because Of Its lack OF infor-
nation or because, as Mr.. Harrington has
said, you don't even know now what the
value Of a mile Of any Of these railroads
isT" No. It did not, and Mr.. Harrington
does not. No member Of this court knows.
No man in the United States knows the
value Of any mile Of railroad In any state In
the union. would like to see the
color Of the eyes OF the man that can an
swer that question and subject him to a
cross-examinatlon. He may obstinately
and obdurately adhere to q statement that
1t is worth $50. 900 or $40. 900 q mile, but he
will do It In the face Of the best records
and arguments and letters and dissertations
and opinions Of the wisest men in the
land. II Is simply a matter OF opinion.
Mr.. Stuefer and Mr.. Weston were right
about It. They did the best they could.
1t was a matter Of opinion. It cannot
be determined BY any mathematics rules;
there are no rigid tests or standards
There is no rule to find the value Of a
mile Of railroad. There is no way fixed in
any Of the books. There is no way that can
DO fixed In any Of the books. 1t is ali a
matter Of opinion. You can take into con-
sideration all information that you can OBJ
tain. You can take into consideration the
track, right of-way. iron, ties, superstruc-
ture. material, earnings. gross and net,
stocks and bonds, the action of other as
SCISSORS, all Of this information, and then
you have to go back to a valuation Of It,
which is a mere matter Of opinion.
Why" says counsel, Just think of thia
bridge at omaha costing at least a mill
lion" 1t can absolutely be reproduced for
about $500, 0OO. that is the evidence here in
the testimony Of Mr.. Berry. He says that
all bridges of the Union Pacific in this state
can be reproduced for 81, s06. 64s. This is
evidence, not assertion. OF what more
value, II the court please. is the mile on
the west half Of the Union Pacific bridge
at Omaha than a mile out in Kimball
county? That mile out in KimbalI county
is just as essential to the integral part OF
this company as the bridge at Omaha. The
interruption In that mile out there inter-
rupts the movement and operation of the
whole line. What Is It's value7 How are
you going to determine the value OF the
line II you simply figure UP the weight Of
the iron. the cost OF the ties, etc. You
could not possibly get the value. You have
to consider 1t in all it's environments and
all Its ramincations. There Is no fixed
rule-it all comes back to a matter OF
opinion as the decisions say-as the courts
say. as Mr.. steufer and Mr.. Weston say
They took into consideration the assess
ment OF other assessors and other boards
and that is an element to be taken into
. consideration.
They say the market price Of the stock
? and bonds should be taken into considera
tion. That is an unstable element. I'm
. derstand that the stocks and bonds, earn
| ings, OF the capitalization Of earnings, al
these things are items OF evidence, but
they cannot be metamorphosed into rules
Z or standards of valuation. They are mere
} items Of evidence. The market quotations
; have been condemned by all the courts al
an unsatisfactory method and I ask oounse
5 to state one decision where stocks anc
/ bonds, or earnings. or any one Of these
elements, Is taken as a rule to FIX the value
/ Of railroad property. There is none
Courts do say that you can take them into
consideration In forming an opinion Of
! values. But II you should take exclusively
' the net earnings, or capitalization Of the
net earnings, or the stocks and bonds, and
? the proof should show that the valuation
: was placed solely thereon. It would be con.
demned because 1t would be unconstitu,
tional, because II could not be, or would
not be, anything else than an income tax
l am not saying you cannot take them int
consideration, but I do say you cannot as
sess railroads according to any one o
> these items solely. Market quotations
. have been condemned by all the courts be
cause they are not so much the result o
caraful Investments NJ far-eightad man NJ