The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-05-19
TO PRESERVE PARITY OF RAIL
ROAD VALUES.

Some years ago when the CORPORATION
Commission ordered a reduction of pas
senger rates, the railroads fought the
contemplated reduction on the ground
that it would deprive them of their right
to earn a fair dividend upon their in
vestment. They reckoned the value of
their property then from two to three
times as much as it was placed on the
taxlists for taxation.
The problem with Railroad Commits
sicns is to preserve the parity between
railroad values when they are being as
sessed for taxation and when they are
oontesting a reduction in freight and pas
songer rates. We have recently printed
several columns of evidence by high OF
fcials of the Southern Railway to the eff
feet that their property IS worth mot
less than $40, 900 per mile" One of their
vice-presidents swore it was worth $780,
600 per mile. Other railroad experts tes-
than $40, 900 per mile" This testimony
came out in a suit brought by prominent
Danville shippers asking for lower freight
rates. The Southern Railway contepded
that it could not reduce rates because, as
the property is worth not less than $40,-
600 per mIle,' it must charge present high
rates to earn a dividend upon the $780,
600 a mile valuation. At the very time
Southern Railway officials were swearing
one that the property was worth mot
less than SAC, 900 a mile" and the other
placed on the tax books in North Caro-
lima at a little over $13, 900 a mile-or one
third of what its officials swore it was
worth. Ought not the Corporation Com
mission to secure and preserve a parity
between valuation for taxation and valu-
alton for freight and passenger rates? If
the Southern Railway is worth SAC, 900 a
mile when it fixes it's rates for passenger
and freight transportation, it must be
assessed at the same valuation for taxa
ton. If it is worth only $13, 900 per mile for
Aucioi II pASoShSSl dLo SlS ldJCS
must be reduced to the s13 600 per mile
basis. A parity of value for taxation and
for rates must be reached and preserved,
Or the public is wronged.
One of the first lawyers in North Caro-
lima, who has been keeping up with the
evidence published, in a private letter,
says:
Il have noticed in your paper that you
have been making copious extracts from
the testimony in the case of the Danville
shippers. You have scored a telling ar
gument. You have, however, failed to
advert to the fact that the Circuit Court
of Appeals at Richmond has rendered an
opinion through Judge Boyd sustaining the
Railroad Company to the effect that its
rates were not unreasonable. I presume
that his opinion is based upon the fact
that the receipts of the railroad company
are not excessively large, considering the
value OF the property, good will, fran
chlses, etc. In other words, the court
holds that because the railroad property
Is worth $40, 600 per mile, this entities the
railroad to charge a larger freight rate
than 1t would IT it were worth a less sum.
While IN considering its right to charge
freight rates the road must be valued at
a high figure. yet when it comes to taxa
ton it shrinks and becomes only a small
percentage of the valuation given it for
the purpose of charging freight rates. 1
have not seen the opinion, but l am as
Stunning that this entered into the matter
A "swink" from $40, 600 a mile for pas
senger fares and freight rates to $13, 900
per mile for taxation recalls Vance's story
of the cat fish, and the exclamation OF
the old negro: Great God Almighty, how
il have swunk!"