The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-10-15
ISSUES Of PRESENT CAMPAIGN
DISCUSSED At G. 0.P. RALLY
CONTINUED From Page g.

dom. 1t is true, as the senator points
out that the supreme court Of the
United States has held,
The basis Of all calculations as
to the reasonableness of rates to be
charged by corporation maintaining
highway under legislative sanction
must be the fair value of the property
being used by it for the convenience
Of the public. And in order to ascer-
tain fair value the original cost of
construction. the amount expended in
permanent improvements, the amour
and market value of it's bonds and
stocks. the presf nt as compared with
the original cost of construction, the
probable rates prescribed by the state.
and the su mrequired to meet the OPP
Grating expenses, are all matters for
consideration and are to be given such
wei ght as may be just and right III
such case.
Smith vs.. Ames.
The senator's proposed amendment
provides fer the ascerta.nment of the
fair value of the property of every
railroad engaged in interstate com-
merce and used by it for the conven-
fence of the public" and further pro-
vides. "all final valuation by the COM
mission shall be prima facie evidence
of the fair value of the railroad pro-
perry In all proceedings under this
act OF course it is apparent to all
that these valuations cannot be made
conclusive, but what does appraise-
ment which is prina facie evidence
amount to? 1t may be of some assist
ance to the interstate commerce COM
mission In determining cases coming
before them so that they will not re-
duce the income of the railroad to the
conffscatory point. but the commission
has never had any difficulty in pass
ing upon this point, fol if they wanted
to ascertain the value Of any railroad
tney could easily send out and get H.
either by their own experts or from
reports of the railroad company. 1t
should be remembered that when a
case Is appealed to the courts upon
the ground that the rate fixed by the
commission is unconstitutional be-
cause 1t confiscates the property of the
railroad without giving them Just CON-
pensation, that the rate fixed by the
commission is prima facie lawful. 1t
is made prima facie lawful rate by
the act, and the burden OF proof is On
the railroad company attacking the
order to show that it is confiscatory.
1t was adding nothing to prima facie
lawful rate to say that it was based
upon an appraisement of railroad pro
perry that was prima facie correct.
for 1t would be just as easy for the
railroad company to overturn the one
as the other by actual proof. In all
the cases that have been tried of this
kind no difficulty has been encount-
cred on this point. The railroad COM
pany has offered proof that the rate
fixed by the commission or by legis-
lative act was so low that it deprived
them of the proper commission and
this valuation based upon proof could
be, and was controverted. by proof 10
the contrary and it remained for the
court to determine what the real ac-
tual valuation was from the evidence
on both sides. 1t will be readily ac-
knowledged that valuation such a.
the senator proposes is convenient
and valuable to a state government
for taxation purposes and he points
cut this fact and says that three
states, Michigan, Wisconsin and Texas
have made appraisements of railroad
property for the purpose of state tax
alton. but most of the states have
railway commissions who are author
lied to fix rates and it has never been
claimed that railroad rates could not
be fixed upon the evidence presented
in each case before the commission in
stead of by prior appraisement of
the railway property. 1, myself, con-
Quoted case involving the reason
able rates for the transportation of
grain from the Red river valley and
the northwest over the Great Northern
railway and this question of whether
the rate was confiscatory and deprived
the company of their property withou,
compensation was Irrigated the same
as any other issue. and after the COM
mission made the order reducing the
rate the supreme court of Minnesota
held that the rate so fixed was prima
facie lawful and the findings of the
commission was prima facie right. To
overturn this rate and these findings
it was incumbent upon the railroad
company to show conclusively an,
beyond question that their property
was cOnfiscated.
Under the rule in Smith VS.. Ames
in order to determine the fair value of
the property. which is the basis of
all calculations, you must take into
consideration the earning capacity of
the road under the proposed rate. and
consequently an anterior valuation
would be worthless as evidence.
Now. s5.00O.00O is large sum to
invest in railway appraisement anu
the United States. even with its ex-
cellent credit could not borrow 81, O00,-
900 for less than per. cent, and
per cent of that amount Of money Is
100000 a year. For 100000 year
the interstate commerce commission
can easily obtain evidence of the value
of any railroad effected by a disput.
of this kind. venture to say that
they would net need to spend one
tenth of that in order to get all the
evidence that is required. In every
litigation before them they have am
pie authority to obtain witnesses and
employ counsel and in my humble
opinion the proceedings to enforce the
rate bill would not be facilitated to any
degree by this expenditure
of 100000. I go further and say
that after mature reflection that so
far as the United States government is
such an expenditure would
be unwarranted and a waste of pub
lie funds. Right here I desire to say
that the great state of North Dakota
s particularly fortunate in its repre-
'entation in Washington. In Repre-