Omaha daily bee., 1902-07-12

grand assessment rolls OF previous years.
o.-what were the returns you particu-
larly refer tot A.-The returns that were
sent to me from county clerks as the prob
able action Of the assessors in the different
counties and also from a comparison OF
those returns, with the action Of assessors
in previous years in assessing different
species Of property throughout the state.
o.-What was the result Of this investi-
cation and this information which you had
received from these comparisonsf
Mr.. simeral-We object to that as In
competent and improper cross-examina-
tion.
Chief Justice sulllvan-obiection sus-
tained.
Q.-In the formation of your judgment,
Mr.. Weston, as a member Of the board,
did you take into consideration that these
railroads that you assessed were actively
engaged in the business OF operating rail-
roads?
Mr.. Howe-That Is objected to az In
competent and not proper cross-examina-
ton.
Chief Justice sullivan-objection sus-
tanned.
Odd you consult and consider tho
records Of not only this year, but prior
years, with reference TO the return made
Of the earnings OF the different railroads.
Mr. sImeral-That Is objected to as in
competent and not proper cross-exsmina-
ton.
Chief Justice STANDARDIZATION over
ruled.
Ave ala.
o.-were there any different persons APP
pearing before the board at the time you
were considering the question OF assess
ments, making arguments or statementsf
Mr.. simeral-objected to as not proper
cross-examinatiop.
Chief Justice STANDARDIZATION over
ruled.
A.-There were.
Odd Mr.. Rosewater appear before the
board. Ale did.
Q.-Mr. Weston, / win ask you to exam
inc that paper, which is marked exhibit 3S.
Have you examined IT. Al have.
Q.-Do you recall these statements that
are contained therein as made before the
board1 Ayes, sir, that lie my r~ecollec-
ton Of the conversation at that time be-
tween myself and Mr.. Rosewater and be-
tween Mr.. Rosewater and the governor.
Q.-Mr. Weston, have you received these
statements that were hledH A.-Those that
Mr.. simeral spoke Off -
Q.-Yes, sir. Ayes, sir.
Mr.. Simeral-We desire to offer. in evil
dence these documents, exhibits 80 and 40
mo objection; received In evidence.)
Mr.. Baldwin-The respondents OFFER In
evidence exhibit So.
Mr.. Simeral-Reserving q general objec-
ton to this method Of cross-examlnatlon
we have no specific objections to this ex'
hibit SS, but generally object that It is moi
proper REORGANIZATION and incompetent
Chief Justice Sullivan-It may be re.
ceived.
Q.-Mr. Weston. your attention wal
called to exhibit No. 40, offered by the re-
lator. which was a statement Of Mr.. Serb
ner, the tax commissioned Of the Unior
Pacific. do not now recall whether 20,
said that was filed or not. Was 1t filed
Alt does not contain the filing mark, o
the office, but 1t was left with me and hai
been on my desk.
Q.-Was II before the assessment wa
nader Did you have It before you mad
the assessment Ayes, sir, before tn
assessment was L lde a cop Of this wa
furnished, I think, to every m OF tn
board.
Q.-For the purpose Of refreshing you
memory, Mr.. Weston. / would ask you 1
It is not a fact that at the time OF tina
hearing Mr.. Scribner. from this pape
marked exhibit 40, read in full that part o
this paper which contained the evidenc
of ]. b. Berry. chief engineer OF the Unioi
Pacific Railroad company, his evidence be
ing given in what was called the penalt
suit Of cost Of reproduction Of the Unioi
Pacific railroad at about that time, 1901
Alt is my recollection he did.
Dread that In full7 Ayes, sir, ~
Q.-From this statement to the board
Ayes. sir.
Q.-Also at the time Of that hearing
when Mr.. scribner was present, did he rea
to you the statement Of the bond and stoc
issue Of the Union Pacific Railroad com
pany, and the Oregon Short Line and Ore
gan Railway and Navigation companyf Flo
the purpose of refreshing your memory,
would like to ask you to examine this ex
hibIt II. Al cannot state positively
regard to that, but my impression is tina
he did.
Q.-Refreshlng your recollection again
Mr.. Harrington-You may orer 1t, Nj
Baldwin.
Mr.. Daldwin-Then / offer 1t as a part
, the cross-examination.
Mr.. Harrington-We will agree that tn
annual report OF the Union Pacific can
offered in full.
|, Mr.. Baldwin, don't now as we haV
any objection to hat. We will OFFER !
, evidence exhibit No. Al. mo objection
|, Received In eVidence.)
Mr.. Whlte-Mr. Weston, In valuing n
property Of the different railroads you cor
, sidered the schedules, did you, that WEI
left with the board for consideration by II
Representatives Of the different roads7 A.
/, don't understand exactly what you mea
by a schedule.
Q.-The schedules required by section 3
} A.-oh. yes, sir, we did.
? Q.-And you had before you testimon
ana information given orally by repre-
. sentatives OF the different roadsH A.-YeI
sir.
/. Q.-Mr. Brandon. the representative {
the Elkhorn, and also Mr.. Bidwell, II
, general manager. appeared before you, al
they not7 Ayes. sir.
! Q.-And you received Information frol
, them concerning the value of the Elkhor
I line, did you not? A.-orally, yes, sir.
| Q.-What was the Information with RI
spsct to the cost OF reproduction of ths
road7
MIR. simeral-That Is objected to as i'm
proper at present.
Chief Justice sullivan-overruled.
} Alt was stated by Mr.. Bldwell to /
nineteen thousand and some hundreds {
dollars; l can't give It exactly.
Q.-That was with reference to the who
: road? Ayes, sir; per mile.