Omaha daily bee., 1902-07-13

ingsf' How ala you get At the earningsf
A.-Well. those were hled with the auditor.
o.-You do not mean that the earnings OF
the G., b. a Q. were ever filed with the
a%uditor7 A.-No, sir, l don't say that.
o-What you mean Is, you found some
statements covering these fifteen different
defunct corporations? Al don't want to
say "defunct."
o.-You don't know OF a railroad that Is
operated in this state known ne the Atchi-
SOD q Nebraska, st. Joseph q Grand Island,
Kansas City a Omaha-none OF these run a
railroad IN Nebraska, do they, that you
know anything about3 A.-They are run,
guess, by the Burlington people or the
b. a NJ. road. I guess.
Q.--Tou knew that these roads had no
franchise Of any value because they were
using another franchise, these fifteen cor
porations? Ave didn't consider the
franchise.
Q.-You tried to assess the physical prop
erty at one-seventh Of the value: Is that
right, now? Ayes, sir.
Cross-eKaminstion by Mr.. white-In ar
irving at the value Of these different rail-
roads in the state OF Nebraska. did you take
into consideration the question Of their
optration1 Ayes, sir.
Odd you consider them as operated
lines? Ayes, sir.
o.-You do not mean TO say, then, that
you considered the rails and the ties, the
rcadbed and the right-of-way as dead, I'M
used materials? A.-No, sir, we did not.
Q.-You considered the rolling stock as
being moved upon the track? Ayes. sir.
Q.-And you considered the earnings?
Ayes. sir.
Odd you consider that the railroad
had a right to move trafic in this state un-
der the law7 Ayes, sir.
Odd you consider the same facts with
reference to all roads that you did in refer
ence to any one OF them7 Ayes, sir, and
oil Of them.
Q.-How is the value OF these roads ar
rived at? Ave took into consideration
the counties through which the roads run
and also the net earnings OF the different
roads.
Odd you take into consideration the
assessment Of other properties generally
throughout the state? A.-well, I did.
Odd you ascertain what the general
standard Of value was Of property through
out the state for assessment purposes9 A.
Yes. sir; / did.
Q.-What was that standard you ascer-
tained1 A-From one-eighth to one
tenth.
o.-How did you arrive at the standard?
A.-Because Of property that had been
sold and ! know what 1t has been assessed
at and what It has been sold at, that is
the only way I could arrive at II. For
instance, IL It was assessed at IS and sold
at $50 Il was one-tenth.
Odd you ascertain that value gener-
ally throughout the state?. A.-No, sir;
only through our part Of the country is
all.
Q.-How did you come to assess the
railroad property at one-seventh, when
you had assessed the other property at
one-tenth-to what portion OF the state
are you referring to? Al said in our
section Of the country.
Q.-You say you ascertained that prop
erty generally throughout the state, or in
your section Of the state at least, was as
sessed at one-tenth? Ayes, sir.
o.-Knowing that, how did you come to
assess the railroad company at one-sev-
enth OF its valuef A.-<Well, we kind OF
didn't like to lower the assessment of
former years. 1t had been assessed at
that and we left II as It was assessed last
year. That Is the way I figured 1t.
o.-Was It your general opinion that II
exact Justice had been done that railroad
property should have been lowered for as
sessment purposes1
Mr.. Harrington object as incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial. (Overruled.)
Any judgment was It should have been
lowered a little.
Q.-Taking into consideration all Of the
matters that you have referred to. did the
assessments made express your best judg.
ment as to the value OF railroad properties
Ayes, sir; that was the best l could hnt
and ! used my best judgment in assessing
them.
Redirect examination by Mr.. simeral
/, You took the Union Pacific at about $45,
900 a mile, didn't you? Wasn't that about
what you took 1t at on an average? A
Yes, sir; I think that was about II. I thinl
the road could be reproduced for that.
Q.-Now supposing II had been shown Il
you that the Union Pacific was worth 500,
900 a mile. including the franchise, that II
the tangible property and Intangible prop
erty, would you have thought the assess
, ment you put upon It just and right? A.
There never was such a showing made.
Ono, but suppose that there had beer
a showing that It was worth 800, 900 a mile
would you have thought or believed that the
assessment you put upon It was just3
Attorney General Prout objects as incom-
petent, irrelevant and immaterial. (sus'
tained.).
Q.-Wny ulu you hbSeb9 inc buIlinbIOI
or b. q NJ. main line higher than the Union
> Pacific? A.-Because, II l am not mistaken
| the earnings OF that road were higher thar
the Union Pacific per mile.
Q.-Where did you get the earnings Of
that roadf Was 1t from Plattsmouth to
! Kearney-is that it, Al think 1t was
I from Plattsmouth to Kearney.
Q.-Now did you have the earnings Of
! the B. & N. at that time for this year
A.-No, sir; 1 don't think we did have then
for this year.
o.-For last yeari A-No, sir; ! think
! II was in the last report.
Q.-That was some years ago, wasn't I'll
! Ayes, sir.
Q.-Now, you had the earnings Of the
! Union Pacific for this YEAR, Al think
we did have.
. o.-And that showed sam a mile, didn't
! it2 Ayes, sir. It was less than 1t was
last year.
: Q.-That was metz Ayes, sir. II was
less than last year-the earnings were.
: Q.-You didn't lower the Union Pacific on
, that account? A.-No, sir.
$50 the reason you assessed the b. a
! NJ. higher was because the net earnings
; were higher than the Union Pacihc7 A
We took that into consideration.
-