The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-06-04

charged by them, amended said bill ufor Its passage, so as to make the rates In force on the first of January. isoI. being the rates In force prior to said unlawful changes, the maximum rates. And defendants further answer ing say that they deny that increase m value Of said articles justifies in- crease In rates for the transportation of the same. And further answering said paragraph, defendants say: that the average freight earnings of con- pialnanf per ton mile over its entire line for said year 1908. was only 00s26 While its average freight earnings du- ring the said year over It's lines In the state or Alabama while said rates ex- isting january I, 1907. were in force was .O0s9S or .00972 per ton mile great CT in Alabama than the average freight earnings of complainant over its en- .ire iine; that many or said rates raised py complainant as shownsb by said sche1- uie or exhibit to said bill as amended so Tar from being reasonable was 80 exorbitant and so prohibitory of int-a- state traffio- in such commodities, that complainant voluntarily restored the same same to the rate in force on January l.. lsof. either in fact or promises to refund excess to shipers. That many pr said increases in said rates by com piainant prior to March 18th 1901 and subsequent to the list day of January 1907, alleged by complainant to be reasonable and just to the public were over one hundred per cent higher th n said rates in force January 1st, 1907, many two hundred per cent. others over three hundred per cent and some as nigh as four, six seven and one evon nine hundred per cent above sale rates nt complainant in force on January ist isoG as shown by said schedule CT statement of said increases made by complainant and attached to the b;ll as amended in this cause as Exhibit; which increases were as IS snown by said bill additions to the profit Of com nlafnt for the transportation of said commodities to the extent of the said percentages of said increases named over and above the profit derived by 1t from said transportation upon and under Its said rates in 'orce January lst. 1907; and defendants aver that II Is manifest from said action of com plaint that said increases male by or or for complainant over said rates in Force January 1st. 1907, were net in- tended by 1t to be permanent or ss rates to be demanded oy .s for such services and were not made in good faith as necessary to afford i. reason- able compensation as averrei in i'd bill: but were intended solely to give It outside figures fixed as above shown In some instances at rates prohibi- tous of intra-state traffic within which f0 raise or lower said rates from time to time as its policy suggested or re- Guirod, to the great and lrreparable Injury of shippers in the State of A!e- bama. depending upon 1t, us com mon carrier for transportation If said commodities.
 "Efghteenth--And defendants for answer to paragraph eighteenth of said bill say: they admit that said Acts were passed at the same session os the Legislature; but they deny that they are exacting unreasonable or arbitrary; and they deny that they were or are intended to be part of a system; and they aver that said Acts were ena sted solely to correct evils, and injastice, practiced by complainant and the oth- CT railroads in said intra-state 1raftlc they deny that said Acts referred 10 in said paragraph should or can be taken as one Act. in determining their vali- dity, or the validity of the rates ike d ythe said Acts. sought to be enjoin- ed; and they aver that said Acts must be separately considered.
 Estimates Are Incorrect
 ''Nineteenth--And for answer to paragraph nineteenth of said bill they say; they admit that the cos. or ex- pense of the, transportation of lntra- state passengers, has been estimated by complainant, and they deny lhs cor rectness of such estimates; and fur ther answering said paragraph they say: they admit that the proper rro- portion of the common expenses attri- butable to said passenger traffic, or the proportion of complainants property devoted to such use, cannot be accu- rately ascertained; but they aver that unless the expense Of transporting iae- sengers Is satisfactorily and sufficient ly established by complainant, said rate for the transportation of passengers in the State of Alabama. fixed by said Act cannot be held unreasonable; end defendants deny that compla ipaat is entitled to the same return, from every class of it's traffic. and they deny that the reasonableness of the rate fixed for said passenger service must be determined by the sufflciency of the income thepefrom to afford complainant sufficient return upon the value of it's property devoted to such service.
 Twentieth-And defendants for an- swer to paragraph twentieth of said bill say; they deny that the effect of said several Acts of the Legislature of the State of Alabama referred to therein, had the same been in force during the said fiscal year ending June 30th, 1906, would have been in any respect as stated in said paragraph they deny the correctness of said Ex- hibits "B" and e." and of the state ments and estimates therein contained, and they deny that the effect of said several Acts applied to the unexpired portion of the current year. and to the future business of complainant, will or would be in any respect as stated in said paragraph; and they aver that the said effect vii be to increase the gross and net receipts of complainant from its said intra- state traffic. And fur ther answering said paragraph they say they admit that the provisions of the statute of the State of Alabama entitled An Act to regulate railroads and oner common carriers in this State; to secure reasonable rates and ser vice. and prevent unjust discrimination in their public service, and prescribe penalties for the violation thereon; are correctly set out in said para graph; and further answering said paragraph they say they deny that the effect of said Act If 1t had been in force during the fiscal year ending June 30th. 1908, would have been in any respect as stated in said para graphg and they deny that the cost of complainant of compliance with said Section Two, of said Act will during the succeeding twelve months be as great as stated in said paragraph: and defendants say that said Secton Is fair and reasonable regulation of the business of the complainant as a com mon carrier; that the cost of com pliance with the same will be initial and not recurrent. and they aver that