The farmer and mechanic., 1907-09-17

stand the apparently studied vague
ness and uncertainty shown in Judge
Moutgomery's ruling. as Master IN
the rate bill hearing in Washington.
with respect TO the motion OF eoun-
sci for the Corporation Commission TO
be allowed 10 make an examination OF
the books OF the southern Railway
Judge Montgomery attitude 30 FAR
needs more than ordinary iIfumina-
ton 20 be understood. He states that
the examination OF the books may De
made as 10 such matters as are peru
nent and yet has appeared perslssent-
lv 10 refuse 70 say either what matters
he intends to include in his use OF
the word or. in case OF doubt, VINO
shall be the judge OF their pert'heh-
cy He declines to say whether ne
will be the judge. though By the inter-
ence OF overruiing the specific mouoh
of counsel 10 be permitted TO examine
the books as to certain matters. ne mas
declared, first that some OF SUCH mat
tiers were not pertinent" 10 the IN
ouiry: and. second. that as TO the
question OF the pertinency OF other
matters, the counsel for the respon-
dent are. at any rate. not TO be the
judge.
Looking at the face OF the Master
ruling. it would appear that he is not
himself to judge of the relevancy OF
matters sought TO be inquired into.
Else. why his refusal TO say that he
would be?
1t appears that the counsel repre-
senting the Corporation Commission
are not to be allowed to decide what
they will examine. For, otherwise,
why the denial Of their motion TO be
allowed to examine the books for GER
tain particular matters?
The logical process Of elimination
would leave the Southern Railway,
custodian of the only source from
which the truth may be obtained, the
judge of what 1t will permit the ad-
verse party to the suit it is contest
ing to examine!
That, of course. would be to shut
out anything that might be disclosed
theory that the Southern is attempt
ing to establish, and we cannot con-
ceive that Judge Montgomery should
attempt or desire to lend himself to
such injustice. At the same time, 1t
is the end to which his order. with
it's vague limitation to 'pertinent
matter. inevitably leads. What 1t
would be profitable at this point to
know is what is pertinent" and how
The original motion was that the
counsel acting for the defendants be
permitted to examine the books OF
the railway:
First: Concerning entries of all
items charged as operating expenses;
Second: All books showing free
passes;
Third: All books showing money
paid in North Carolina on account Of
lobbying;
Fourth: All accounts of earnings of
the Railway Company.
In making this motion, counsel
stated that they did not desire to
make the examination except in the
presence Of the custodian of the books
by him to be present. And yet, in over
ruling the motion, Judge Montgom-
cry stated that one Of his reasons for
doing SO was that it was the evident
intention to have an examination apart
from the Master and the custodian OF
the books. In view of the fact that
the contrary had been positively stat
oH hxyn
further mystery about Judge Mont
gomery's action.
1t is difficult to perceive in what
way the matters specified by counsel
are rot pertinent to the defense Of
the laws that are being attacked. So
far as the present hearing is concern
ed the question is one simply of mathe-
matical determination as to whether
reduction in fares of SO much will
produce a reduction OF revenue to a
point that will be "confiscatory'' within
the construction of the i4th Amend
ment to the Constitution of the United
States. How is this fact to be deter
mined. except from the books? And
how. except to ascertain from the
books what the receipts Of the road
amount to and what is the expense
of producing those receipts, may it
be ascertained whether the alleged
reduction in revenue is sufficient to
wipe out what the law says is rea-
sonable profit on operation? How are
the matters specified not pertinent"
to this inquiry? Certainly it is COM
petent to discover the actual cost of
doing the business. Manifestly it is
competent to discover from what total
of receipts these expenses must be de-
Quoted for the purpose OF ascertaining
the net. And, certainly it wouiJ seem
to be competent by an examinauiCn
as to free passes to discover whether
by their issue contrary to law, the
net had not been reduced at the eX-
pense of the patrons of the road. And.
surely, lobbying and its cost, il flgur-
ed in operating or other legitimate ex-
pense, is an item that ought properly
to be eliminated from the mathemati-
cal problem with which the Court is
supposed to be dealing.