Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-10-29

itruttschniu IN his testimony ~ the
hearing in August sald was worth
between $4,000 and Sso.ooo per mile.
on this basis tho judge showed from
reports and statistics tuat the earnings
81 the Union Pacific system Tor the
fiscal year past were in excess OF
IS per cent of the total valuation or
the system
SOME COMPARISONS.
A comparison was made between tho
Denver a RIO 0rnndo and the Union
Pacific and Judge pey snid that the
testimony OF the WitnDseUH Cor the no
Graudc showed that no rational man
could make any comparison between
the two systems. ns the one is local
line. subject TO physical disabilities
and extra cost over the other. a trans
continental highway not subject 20 tho
disabilities of the first. and the RIO
Grandc. although being shut out OF
the tranecontinoutal business az ogden,
yet according Co figures accessible
eli the earnings OF tho road upon a
valuation of $4,000 per mile were
shown TO Doc in excess of per cont,
which the Judge said was not 10 bad
after an
Ia the matter OF valuation of rights
OF way submitted by the two roads
IN point. Judge Dey said that the
Union Pacific should not include the
cost of their right Of way, for Il
was donated by the government
He said that n appeared 20 DE the
duty OF the commission 10 establish
such a basis OF rates that every one in
the great west should receive fair ana
just treatment from the railroads. as
compared with those received in other
localities. He said In his opinion the
commission should take as the stand
ard for gaging rates the Union
Pacific. that thoroughly equipped trans
continental line, and that other roads
be compelled 10 come 20 this basis
In concluding his address, Judge Dcy
said the complainants did not seek any
special privilege for any city or set of
shippers in any part of Utah, but
sought simply a fair and just rate for
the entire state "it Ia not our desire
TO be unjust 10 the railroads, but we
do want Justice for Utah shippers and
equity for the railroads. We want 10 be
absolutely fair 10 the roads, and desire
In return that they give Us fair treat
ment I'm the matter Of Just and equit-
able rates on the commodities shipped
IN over their rails.
DIId.ARD FOR RAILROADS.
The argument for the side OF the rail-
roads was conducted by Judge r. G.
billiard, interstate commerce attorney
of the Union Pacific.
Judge billiard said he had no wish 10
circumgcribe the powers Of the commits
sion in fixing rates. but he had some
very pronounced views I'm regard 10
those powers which were brought into
prominence again by the complaint IN
this case. in his Judgment the require
mcnts OF this complaint did not seek
a readjustment OF any particular COM
modify rate. but TO effect a new scheme
OF rates. The complaint asks that the
Pacific coast and internountain rates
be based upon distance only. Judge
billiards. contention was that as far as
the establishment OF any new scheme
OF rafes was concerned, that would be
beyond tho powers delegated TO the
commission by the interstate commerce
act. That the plaintiffs had failed 10
show that the commodity rates were
unreasonable, was evident In the re-
mark directed by Commissioner Prouty
10 s. III. BabcociS during the hearing
that the commission had heard no evil
dencs on this point, and the commits
Eioner's remarks were IN accord with
tho provisions OF the first section of
the interstate commerce act, which says
that the commission shall have power
20 fix a reasonable rate for the service
performed. And had the commodity
rates been given they would have been
shown 20 DO reasonable.
WATER COMPETITION.
Judge billiard contended that com
modify rates to Pacific coast terminals
are governed and fixed By water conf
petition. and that the effort Of the salt
lake shippers to induce the commits
eion to establish a scheme OF rates on
this basis must OF necessity fall. he
cause they have no proof OF the I'M
reaSonableness OF those rates.
In reply 70 a question by Commits
sioner Clark Judge Dillard said that
even N the Utah rates were three times
as high as they are. water competi-
ton rates should not in justice be used
as a basis OF comparison. Because"
said Judge Dillard, N you permit such
. comparison. every time the question
comes up you will be serving notice
upon US that every time we meet water
competition we are likely to have our
rates TO Interior points reduced, even
if we have met all water competition,
at almost no profit whatever"
The judge claimed that the powers
Of fixing rates. which may be confls-
catory or reasonable, rs legislative, and
subject 20 review BY the courts Com
billiards. opinion the commission should
be allowed to use what information
they had gathered I'm other cases such
as those Of the Spokane and Reno ship
pers, In rendering their decisions with
reference TO the Salt Lake ease The
Judge replied that he thought they
were entitled 10 use the knowledge
they had acquired. a. their powers
were largely construed 10 be legislative
AZ the hour Of noon recess, az
O'Clock. Judge billiard had not con-
cuded his argument lie VIII be fol-
lowed by s. H. Babcock. who win
close Cor the c0mplalnants this after
noon.