The semi-weekly messenger., 1907-05-31

The plaintiffs show that the gross
earnings from intra-state freight for
The year mentioned were 1892, 1925.
The operating expenses incident 10 TINS
service were 1929, 1925. leaving s2l2,-
916.71 as net earnings, but from this
must be deducted this serviceS pro-
portionate part Of th7 taxes paid to
the state, approximated at s38,445.96'
which leaves s174,47075 as the COM
panv's net earnings from the intra-
state freight business for the year. The
proportionate part Of the value OF the
companv's property in this state to
ito intra-state freight business will
show s4,187,413 Of capital devoted
thereto, yielding All per cent net re-
caints Investigation Of the intra- |
freight business Of the company for
Tho wear above mentioned shows that
had the proposed reduced freight rates
the gross receipts would have been re-
duced s27, 7,66O.73 making the net re-
ceipts $146.810.02.
Rut there comes in the bonded in
debtedness and the certificates OF IN
debtedness of the company. The PLAIN
tiffs give the figures, showing what
part of this is apportionate to the in
tra-state business, what amount OF IN
terest il has to bear annually, When'
added to the other expenses, give tue
net amount left to stock holders out
of the gross receipts These figures
show that had the proposed reduced
freight and passenger rates been ID
force for the year mentioned there
would have been a deficit Of $122,2OO.-
90 instead of any dividends to the
Stockholders on the North Carolina
business of the company; that is to
sav. the gross receipts would have fall
en- short that amount of paying operat-
ing expenses and interest on the COM
| pany's Indebtedness.
The order of the court when mace
| nm the hearing. no doubt will require
| the company, pending suit, to give
| receipt to each person purchasing
| B. .h d;Horonce betwee the
| nresent rate and the one under the
! new law, the money to be held by the
| court, to be returned in case the ne"
| rates are upheld; thus following the
| rule laid down by the legislature IN
appeals from the orders OF the corpo-
ration commission; so no one can oe
injured by the proceeding. The plain
tiffs in their complaint suggest this
| procedure, showing that they wish to
be fair and just to the public.
The main question in this case is a
fadaral one. coming under the four
teenth amendment to the constitution,
which prohibits taking private prop
erty for public use without just ana
| reasonable compensation. Therefore
no matter in what court this suit
might be Instituted 1t would finally be
taken to the federal supreme court;
so +ime and expense will be saved by
a.~
bringing the suit in the federal circui'
court instead Of in the state superior
court; in which latter case it would
have to go through all the state courts
and then to the supreme court OF the
United States. In this view OF the
case We do not see the sense IN the
cry some have made against su
ing II the federal court" These PLAIN
tiffs show facts which on their tace
oive them a cause Of action and they
have gone about protesting their rlgnI'
and property in an orderly and lega
manner They have taken the cours'
the law has provided and they have
sought the aid Of that court which VII
the soonest bring the questions invoV
ed TO final settlement and where a
even justice will be 'neted out to al
persons therein interested as
anv other court We canOt see tina
they have outraged the state Of NortI
Carolina by applying to the fedora
| instead of the state courts 1or relel
especially when. as pointed out above
tho final decision will necessarily b
nv the federal court Of last resort
RODIES OF NORTH CAROLINA