The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-01-23

manded . different treatment. Dry law
ana dry statistics were called for at
tnat stage OF the proceedings and these
ne dealt with In his long address be-
fore the court. He spoke almost
monotonously, but never hesitatingly.
throushout the day
Before him. Mr.. selheimer had the
sworn returns made by the roads to
the Railroad Commission, and he had,
too, the affidavits bearing upon the
case which had been made by Commits
sioner Nesbit
The States attorney had gone care
fully through these figures, but he had
also some law at hand which he SUBJ
mitted to sustain his various conten-
He submitted to the court that under
the law the roads could not make i'm
provements and charge them to operat-
ing expenses 1t appeared that this
was a point OF Importance to the State
and, for that matter. point OF import
ance for the settlement of the entire
case Mr.. Selheimer came back to 1t
more than once during his argument.
II was more than once emphasized that
the roads could not spend funds for new
equipment and for permanent improve
ments and charge the funds so expend-
cd to operating expenses
The improvements are projected into
the future and should be charged pro-
portionateiy to each year of their ex-
istence," declared Mr.. Selhelmer.
The roads had way, Mr.. Selheimer
claimed. of putting large sums In i'm
provements and making the charge
against the roads. In this way, he
contended. the net earnings of the road
were cut down and the roads were able
to show q very low rate OF profits He
took up with special emphasis in his
comments, the case Of the Central of
Georgia. This company, he said, had
come into court. saying In its affida-
Wits that II had never made enough
money on IT'S lines to pay the interest
on its bonds. Mr.. Selheimer, quoting
from his store of ready figures. de-
elared the Central OF Georgia had spent
$S6O.O0o last year on improvements and
betterments. and this amount had been
charged against the operating ex-
penses of the road.
Mr.. Selheimer commended that IL that
money had been applied to that Npur-
pose It would have paid the interest on
it's bonds.
In this way, Mr.. Selheimer took up
the ngures on flle from the Louisville
and Nashville. the Western of Alabama
and other contrasting roads Mr.. Sell
heimer had but little to criticize in the
item OF operating expenses, the book
keeping of the Western Of Alabama
A larger part OF the argument of Mr.,
Selheimer was devoted to the returns
MADE by the South and North and the
Louisville and Nashville and to the re-
iations of the two roads. His argu-
ment conveyed the impression that be-
cause of unfair bookkeeping the prof
its OF the South and North had been
kept down SO that the earnings of that
road would not show up so large. He
declared that the operating expenses
Of the South and North were unduly
large. He declared that while the
mileage of the South and North was
only small part OF the Louisville and
Nashville, its operating expenses as
shown by the returns were nearly half
the total Of the entire system.
Mr.. Selhelmer, In discussing inter-
state and intfastate business pointed
out that the South and North Railroad
might be considered as doing exclu-
sively an interstate business as all the
mileage Of the road was situated in
Alabama.
In the atddavits filed by Commission
er Nesbit and on which Mr. Selheimer
largely based his argument, the inter
and the interstate business Of both the
South and North had been presented
Quoting figures from these and the re-
turns made by the railroads Mr.. Sell
heimer argued that by their system of
bookkeeping, particularly in the mat
ter OF charging improvements to op-