The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-30

srror in the mode of determining whss constitutes interstate business, mucn
 of which 1t is insisted is in reality do- treated in the calculation in ascerfafn-
 Ing the volume and profits From d0- nestle business. It is also insisted as
 to the first two companies. that tsie in intrastate business are entirely too
 high. and that upon q fair valuation. and 4 c0rrect method of keeping books ana treating as domestic business, ey-
 tnrn upon the proportion of value de- voted to intrastate business would bs adequate. The afiidavIts filed on these points. mainly on the part Of the com several hundred pages. dealing witt, the history of the railroad com panies here concerned. from the time of the building of the roads. down to tife of the various properties. and contain elaborate statements as to details if.- cluding the method of keeping &C., counts, and of conducting business. the transportation and the reasons which justify the present rates. Upon prem lses each side draws from this evil dence, respondents Insist that 1t does not appear that eomplainants win not receive an adequate income under the reduced rates, and therefore they should be tried now, while compfain- ants present series of classincations showing that in the most favorable view, possible under the evidence. some Of complafnants will have net fn- come of less than I per cent. while others will have to conduct their busl- ness at an absolute loss of hundreds ann tnousands of dclfars
 one or the most safssfactcry tests aside from putting 2 tarin Into opera rates would have upon the businsss af the carrier. Is to lake that business Tor two or three years preceding If ft can be assumed that the future busi- cost and the same volume. under like conditions. and then see what effact the reduction, if applied to the busi- ness done. would have had upon the method the Supreme Court has aps proved as very proper one. Tae evidence. shows. without conflict that the two. years preceding the legfsfa- prosperous years In the history of these carriers and that during those years none of the complainants though operating under a higher scheduls of enacted at the last session of the Leg islature. earned over per cent per annum upon the value of that portion State st ns5 as @ost sa sse much less Giving as wide a margin against complainants as the evidence will possibly justify on these points. nS to swollen estimates of value of ths property. and errors in crediting in- come from certain classes Of freight to interstate business. instead of to domestic business. there ia a decided probability that the most favorably situated of the complainants will bare Iy earn any compensation under the reduced rates. while others will suffer heavy losses The calculations tn the case of the Central of Georgia Railway are made upon the valuation of the property at the figures fixed by the Authorities for taxation. It is alleged Tn the bills that the sclassifications made in the 'eight group" act are purely arbitrary. and that they afo rot inetifiable under the existing con- ditioust that under the scheme of c1as- sification and rates. large advantages srs given to other carriers. similarly situated as compiainants who continue fo litigate the rates. If this be true: it would nuiIify the whole scheme cf rates.
 court iustlned in the exercise or reaaonable discretion in ruling that inc rates shall be put Into actual op- arsfion. pending final ascertatnment or the fact upon their reasonapieness de- pehass pIn Htgh on Injunctions Section 4sis it Is said: If the question or fscf upon which the injunction de- pends Is evenly balanced upcn amcA-
 fContlnued on Page Nine.l