The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-30

1 A~c. 77s. Tretman vs. smith. 1o5 Ken lucky. 2s1- cottfng vs. Kansas City | Stock Yards Company, 173 U. $. 7s. The power of the Legislature of Alabama
 under Section sas of the Constitution, 9, | ination and extorfion." and enforce reasonable and just rates Of freight | and passenger tariffs." Does that pow maximum limit. above which profits | shall not be taken. although n public utility corporation fully discharges all
 It's duties to the public. is not guilty of extortion or unjust discrimination. and charges only just and reasonable ratesg l See Section 35 of the Constitution. These cases, however. are not coinpli-
 Oy iny there asy ra,sss as to the power of the Legislature. to prevent any given volume of profit be- yond an adequate reward, when tins
 rates. The question was mootsd by counsel. and the court refers to- ft merely to say that nothing is intended to be decided In these cases. It suf- | fees say here, in view of the authorities the evidence submitted. and general conditions in Alabama, Of which the court may take judicial notice. that the court is of opinion that railroad car plain of any schedule of freight and passenger tariff which does. not permit if to earn from it's intrastate business.
 net annsm rns0e of saah ts 'p pes value Of the portion of the capital employed in that business If the business Is done with out unjust discrimination, and at Just Way SH Preiimiaary Iasunction should xviii volumincus evidence has been offered as to the effect of the re- piainants, and the court has given much time to a very careful examination Of the great mass of testimony onered on that point The isbors or the court s .sn sn exhaustfve comments of counsel on both sides as to the tendencies of this mass
 of evidence. It would be imposslnis
 ali the phases of the testimony which
 counsel have presented and urged In
 support of their respective contentious
 up9n on preliminary hearing the court
 should refrain, as far as possible, not only from expressing, but from 1orni- ing, any opinion as to the final merits
 In passing on this branch or ,s shs
 deal only with some of its
 dominant features. which Appear prima facis 10 be estasiisned by tne
 evidence The vs,us s,ss,sas or Ine one o oP the
 main factors upon which the reason
 abieness of rates depends. The value
 of property of this Kind depends upon
 many C0n8lOeIdGIuAbs 1h9t tce~sitA~-.S
 as to value Is largely what Is denomi-
 mated opinion evidence, in which
 there Is generally wide margin of
 difference. Upon one valuation Of
 railroad the Income unfer schedule
 of rates may be entirely insumcienf.
 while upon less value 1t may be en-
 fireiy adeouate. So too, in npding
 what constitutes the net results of do-
 nestle business, as distinguished fraon
 interstate commerce. much depends
 upon the methods of keeping the ac-
 counts. and whether what Is one busi-
 ness is really treated as the other bus
 mess. Ali these are disturbing factors
 h any calculation. and until court
 can know the value of the property, As
 well as that the method adopted In de-
 ferfnfning what is State and what is
 interstate business, 1t cannot determine.
 vhe ether any particular calculation
 leads with any certainty to the truth
 of the disputed Issue. In the argu-
 nient. counsel for respondents. tacnly
 At least. admitted upon the evidence
 as it now stands. thSf the1 Nashville.
 ChattauooRa and St Louis Railway
 Company. under the rates prescribed.
 wn,,id conduct It's business at an ab-
 solute loss. Their resistance to a pSe
 iininary injunction. in this branch of
 khe case has been mainly directed ev
 kha cases of the Louisville Nash
 vslle Railroad Company. the South q
 North Alabama Railroad Company, and
 the Central of GeorgiA, Railway Com
 pany. It Is insisted in each of those
 cases that there has been radical