The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1907-12-03
Mr.. HiIIman and Mr..
Brown Under Fire
NEXT ON THURSDAY
Hearing. Postponed ON Account o:
Motion TO BE Made Before supreme
CourI Tomorrow. The Tcs-
tinlony Given on Ye~tcr-
day.

The hearing in tAe rate bill case
was continued yesterday before Mas
ter Walter Montgomery, with the
cross-examination Of Mr.. c. w. Hill
man, expert for the State, and the
further partial examination and cross
examination Of Mr.. II. g Brown. clerk
to the Corporation Commission.
Messes. +. \. Woodland and T. j.
Justice represented the state. and AIR.
A y. Thorn took care of the South
ems business.
The cross-examination by Mr.. Thorn
Of Mr.. Hillman was incisive, at times
bright and, while often sharp, ALWAYS
in good humor.
Mr.. Justice and Mr.. Thorn created
an atmosphere of pleasant irony that
gave color TO the figures and "theo-
ries'' in the testimony.
The hearing was finally adjourned,
with the ctoss-examination Of Mir.
Brown incomplete. till next Thursday.
the reason assigned being the fact
that a motion in the Supreme Court OF
the United States is to be heard to-
morrow to advance the habeas cor
pus cases appealed from Judge Prltch-
ard for The agreement
was hat these cases should be advanc-
gether with the $4,000 fine case from
Wake county. but the latter has not
yet been decided by the North Caro-
lima Supreme Court.
l. dShiIS lOI dH diNdlICtilltIl Gull
sci for the Southern and the State will
concur.
Mr.. Hillman and the Supreme Court.
In continuing his cross-examination
OF Mr.. Hillman. Mr. Thorn referred
to his testimony of the day before
that the rail Way accountants in the
employ of the railroads insist that the
cost of earning q ,iolltr in local Dusi-
ness should DE calculates: by adding
a certain number of cents t. the av"l-
age cost of all businss and asked
whether he dif4'cG win them. Tn
witness replied hat lie did
Mr.. Thom then read from the de-
cision of the Supreme Court in the
Smythe VS.. Ames case in which il was
stated that "he'-referring to expert
! Observation-Disclosures the expense of
local business over all business to be
ar least 10 per cent or higher" and
again that. having due regard to the
testimony the court was not permitted
to place local business on the same ex-
pense ratio as that Of the total bust
ness. You also differ with the Su-
preme Court?" asked Mr.. Thom.s
Mr.. Justice at this point took a
hand in the proceedings by Directing
that it was sought to obtain an as
sertion from the witness that he diff
fered with the Supreme Court, when
the statement OF what the Supreme
Court had said was not correct. The
oupit III (Cdit L, Eolo u u ~ iACIl
it mad the decisions did not have
before it the theory previously al
vanced by Mr.. Hillman, but only that
of t.. e witness quoted and, in making
its decision, said lin absence of other
testimony"
Mr.. Thorn: Z object to what MIR.
Justice has said as 10 the Supreme
Court, although | appreciate its loss
in mot having had the benefit Of Mr..
Hillman's testimony. DO you differ
with that"
Mr.. Hillman: Il differ with that.
The Supreme Court in the Smythe-
Ames case had no testimony except
that. They are not supposed to pre-
sent testimony. but to pass on the
facts. I consider hat decision was
rendered on a one-sideu state of facts"
Mr.. Thorn asked whether the wit
ness had read the record in the case
and he stated at first that he had. but
later amended his answer by admit
ting that he had confused the record
with the opinion.
Mr.. Thorn: why 90 you say, then
that you know what the evidence
VASE"
Mr.. Hillman: IF YOU will read the
paragraph"
Mr.. Thorn: II have read it many
times but I've never seen anything like
that in it."
Mr.. Justice: Il object to that state
ment because it appears that the wit
ness is right and the counsel wrong"
Mr.. Thorn Holding His Potato"
AT this point Mr.. Thorn turned over
the report to Mr.. Justice who scanned
the pages diligently for a few minutes.
Mr.. Thom:F is the gentleman I'M
able to find it,"
Mr.. Justice: Il will if -oun hold
Mr.. Thorn: put hat in the rec
ord!"
Master Montgomery: I'm not GO
ing to cut you off, Mr.. Justice. Take
all the time you Van -. We've
nothing else to do. Captain Thorn
started it Off
Mr. Justice at length found in the
opinion two related expressions that
he claimed justified his statement that
the court had based its decision, on
the absence of any other testimony,
but Mr.. Thorn did not agree with him
and the examination continued, read
ing from the opinion to the effect that.
looking at the entire business of the
road. the local business must be as
certaineG by adding a certain number
of cents 10 the average of the whole
"You have said that the method is
entirely u~ntenable. That is the posi-
ton Of the Supreme Court. Is that
untenable?"
Mr.. HiIiman: ION that construction
yes"
Mr.. Thorn scores a Point.
Reading from an opinion by Justice
Brewer IN the same case. Mr.. Thom
quoted from it to the effect that ex-
perts finck and Utt had testified that
the cost of local business was four or
six times that of through business.
You are opposed to Finck and Utt?
Mr.. Hillman: Yes" But he added:
Il call Your attention to the fact that
all the gentlemen have TAX en- the same
basis, Of four times the cost to carry
intrastarC as interstate freight-nOt
the total business" He repeated that
you could not use the total business
as q basis to which to add d fixed sum
to get the local business. 1t was true
hat. while the cost of handling local
business might be ten. twenty or thirty
per cent higher than that OF handling
through buSineSs-tO take the total
business as a basis on which to add
the excess cost is Fundamentally incor-
rect. because to do mat is to include
the evt-y cost and then add it.
Mr.. Thorn: Then If Finck and TIT
testified one way and DilWorth the
other way. and the Supreme Court
said it could be done as Dilworth said.
YOU are mistaken in saying that there
tactic -