The Topeka state journal., 1909-03-08

less than carload lots.
Valuation Fixed.
The valuation of the roads has been
nxed by the court as shown by the
nndlngs of fact. The entire state and
interstate earnings of each of the roads
within the state is known and fixed to
certainty. The expenses are known
and fixed. To apportion these ex-
penses. must be done according to one
OF the two theories, and the correct
theory is that according to revenue.
one theory or other must be applied to
both freight and passenger expenses,
and the court should not adopt the one
theory as to part, and the other theory
as to another. The one theory is help
full to the one side, and the theory
helpful to the other side, the one
theory to the one side in freight, and
the other theory to the other side in
passenger. But an arbitrary splitting
of theories is illogical and unfair, and
cannot be recognized. The court has
adopted the revenue theory because a
great number of the best railroad ex-
limited number to the contrary have
so testified. Every court that has ever
had this question before it in so far
l am advised by the briefs of counsel
and my own independent investigation
has so held in the cases by the su-
preme court of the United States; in
the two cases, by two circuit judges of
this court. by three district Judges of
of Florida, State VS.. Atlantic Coast
Line. And Beale & Wyman on Rail-
road Rates Regulation, announces such
, as being the correct rule. The values
of the property within the state have
been fixed by the court. The entire
earnings within the state, interstate
and state. freight, passenger, and mis-
cellaneous of each, have been fixed
The entire expense is known. including
the extra cost of each. To ascertain
whether the result is a profit, and If so
what per cent, or a loss, is but PROB
lem of primary arithmetic, as Is shown
by Judge Van Devanter in Arkansas
rate cases. There are other methods
equally simple the resultant figures or
course being the same. These com
putations show as to the commodities
covered by the freight rate statute of
1907, that two roads, the Hannibal &
ST. Louis and the Burlington, allowing
nothing for extra cost. there is de-
ficit. and with all other companies less
than two per cent. But with the extra
cost added, the deficit for the two COM
panies is much greater and the other
companies show deficit
Passenger Earnings.
1.-The passenger earnings under the
two cent fare law of 1907, allowing
business, give no return whatever TO
the Rock Island. st. Louis & Hannibal,
Kansas City, Clinton Springfield,
and the Great Western. The other COM
Louis & San Francisco between three
and four per cent; the Santa Fe be-
tween four and five per cent; the KAN
sas City Southern a small fraction ever
two per cent; the NJ. K. & T. between
two and three per cent; the Burlington
between three and four per cent. But
all this is arrived at by allowing no
extra cost of service. But to add the
extra cost for freight and passenger, |
there are no earnings over expenses.
This is conhscation under the constitu- |
tion.
1T being a legislative act, and not a
judicial one this court cannot fix |
rates. If it could, two and one-half
cent passenger rates would be fixed for 1
the stronger roads; and three for the |
others. But that is for the legislature !
state employed in these cases, or !
through commission with like assist |
ance.''
Judge Mcpherson also says in the
decision: when the statutes in ques- |
tion were enacted, it was believed by |
many that by reducing the fare there |
would be much more travel For a
month or so this proved to be true. But |
with the novelty gone. the testimony |
shows that the increase has been less |
than three per cent and more nearly |
one per cent" |
He says further as to the abolition !
OF passes that the evidence shows the /
passenger revenue is increased by rea- |
son thereof less than one per cent.
History of the Case.
The maximum freight law as passed !
by the legislature involved reductions /
ranging from per cent to 40 per cent
on heavy freight in carload lots. The
railways secured court order tenn
porarily restraining the state officials
from putting this act into effect, and
on June II. 1907, Frank Hagerman, rep !
resenting the various railroads. petit ,
toned the court to make this order per- |
IoTr al a ant AM
the suggestion of Judge Mcpherson, =
who desired to have a practical test, i
the two cent passenger rate law was
put into effect on June II, 1907, to run +
three months. At the end of that per-
iod both sides agreed to continue the
rate in effect as the results obtained
had not been considered sufficient, and +
the law is still being enforced.
Many Delays Had Occurred.
After many delays the cases were !
finally brought to trial before Judge .
Mcpherson. Both sides presented a
long array of figures to uphold their
claims, some of the most prominent
railroad men and attorneys appearing
either as experts or counsel. The final
arguments were presented on January
20, last. At that time Governor Her :
bert S. Hadley. who as attorney general
had started the cases. spoke for the
state.
Frank Hagerman, of Kansas City,
made the principal argument for the
railroads, and a dozen other attorneys
of prominence took part in the argu- /
ments. The court room was crowded /
today with lawyers and railroad men
eager to hear Judge McPherson's decis-
ion. The state was represented by FL
hot w. Majors, who last November was
elected attorney general to succeed Mr.. i
Hadley.
Views on the Decision.
After the decision had been handed
down the views of the attorneys of
both sides of the controversy was
sought as to what Immediate effect the