The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-06-04

Garber as the attorney IeHerai oi the State of Alabama, to the bill of com plaint as amended filed against them in the above entitled cause.
 Come the said defendants and for answer to said bill of complaint joint ly and separately say:
 "F1rst-For answer to the first par agraph of said bill they say they ad- init the averments of the same.
 "Second-For answer to the second paragraph of said bill they say they admit that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of two thousand dol lars; but they deny that the said acts of the Legislature of the State of Ala bama or any of them impairs the obli- gation of any contract of complainant with the State of Alabama. or deprive or deprives 1t of any rights ior immu- mites guaranteed or secured to com- plainants under the Constitution of the United States.
 "Third-For answer to paragraph third of said bill they say they admit the organization of complainant and It's ownership of the lines of railroad as therein stated, but they have no knowledge of the exact number of miles operated by 1t.
 "Fourth--For answer to paragraph fourth of said bill they say they admit the amendments to the charter of com pldlndnL d6 LneTtlH SluIcu, dlu LHdl IL complied with the laws of the State of Alabama in reference to foreign corpo- rations as stated in said paragraph: they admit that complainant Is the owner of said several railroads as stat ed therein but they have no knowledge of the trackage rights owned by it. nor of the total mileage of said rail- roads. And, further answering said paragraph they say they deny that it T. filed, or now, the sum of s34,950, ,000.00 to reproduce and equip said road as it was then or Is now constructed and equipped; and they deny that said road was then or is now worth said sum.
 "Fifth--For answer to paragraph fifth of said bill, defendants say: they admit that complainant has been charg- ing the rates for transportation of pas sengers stated therein, and has charged upon the articles set out in Exhibit A to said bill more than the rates fixed by the classifications and schedules set out in said exhibit; but they deny that the said passenger and freight charges charged by complainant, or either of them, were fair or reasonable or Just charges for such transportation, and they aver that they were and are un- reasonably high; they deny that said rates charged by complainant encour-
  portation. or increased the production. commerce and population of the coun- try tributary to said railroad in Ala bama. And further answering said paragraph defendants say that said rates fixed by said classifications and schedules are just and reasonble to complainant and that the use and adop- tion of the same by complainant would so encourage and promote transporta- a merce and population of the country in Alabama tributary to said railroad, that the profits of complainant from said transportation In the State of Ala bama would be largely increased.
 'Sixth-For answer to paragraph sixth of said bill defendants say: They have no knowledge as to whether the fiscal years. ending June 30, 1905. and June 30, 1906, were the most prosper ous years of the operation of the lines of complainant, but they believe said averment, excepting the current year to be true. And further answering said paragraph defendants say: they deny that during neither of said years, com plainant under the rates charged by it for traffic or intra- state business. did not receive as much as a fair and just return on the value of its property in the State of Alabama, devoted to the SSN traffic; and they deny each and every other averment and allegation in said paragraph contained And further an- swering said paragraph they say: that said figures as to value of complain ants property devoted to said intra- state traffic in said State, and the oth- CT estimates stated in said paragraph are made upon purely arbitrary en- tries and apportionments, and are not made upon any reasonable or correct basis or methods; and they aver that there have been earnings not properly credited to said portion of said prop erty of complainant in said State, by reason of improper methods or basis of apportionment, and thus. and by other inaccuracies. the estimate of the value of said property devoted to said intra-state traffic has been fictitiously raised; and defendants further aver that said estimates of expenses, con tain many items, that should properly have been charged to capital and not to expense.
 Seventh-And defendants for answer to paragraph seventh of said bill say: they deny that the cost of earning all intra-state traffic of complainant. was or is more than the average cost of earning from its traffic of every kind; they admit that the cost of earning intra-state traffic of the particular character described in said para graph, Is greater, but not to the extent stated in said paragraph; and they deny that said increased cost of earning $100.00 from any of said intra- state traffic is as much as $l5.00 more than the average cost of earning said sum from it's traffic of every kind And further answering said paragraph they say that there Is much of said intra- state traffic which possesses the feat ures of through movement and low cost, and that there is much of the Atcr- state traffic of complainant which is carried on local trains from points of origin or to points of destination in the State of Alabama which par takes of the features of lntra-state traffic stated in said paragraph; and they aver that the average of the cost of the intra-state traffic of complainant is no greater than the average of the cost of it's interstate traffic and that the percentage of profit upon its said intra- state traffic is much greater than that derived from its interstate traf- fic.
 Claim Wrong Statement.
 Eighth--And for Jnswe' to para graph eighth of said bill defendants say: they have no knowledge as to whether the lines of complaint in the State of Alabama have beel honestly, economically and skilfully managed. or of the practice of the several and sun dry economies in the sai1 manage ment; stated in said oaragra2n, and they demand proof of the same: except in the payment of taxes upon said property which they admit And fur