Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1909-04-17

constitutions? As above stated, ev-
cry presumption will be INDUCED In
favor of this act, and hence it must
be presumed that the Legislature
carefully considered the foregoing
facts before enacting such rates. II
lit is permissible for defendant ia
|adopt the test which it has adopted
for determining the reasOnableness
!of such rates, then upon the same
reasoning 1t would be proper in or
der to show the inadequacy of rates
Igenerally, to prove that certain or
all of its branch lines are unremu-
lucrative. This clearly could not be
done.
The court holds that the test of the
'reasonableness of the rates is wheth-
er the roads will be able to earn a
fair profit upon their entire bust
ness, and it finds also that the roads
have not overcome the presumption
of reasonableness by the evidence
they have produced. OF this feature
Of the case the court say:
! In the light of the we'll settled
rules above announced, does the
proof warrant this court in holding
that these statutory rates are un-
reasonable and confiscatory, and
hence that the act establishing the
same is unconstitutional and void?
I'VE are clear that this question must
be answered in the negative. De-
PENDANT attempted to show the in
validity of such rates, first by COM
parison of such rates with rates of
transportation of soft coal, and, Sec
ond, by conclusions testified to by
various witnesses to the effect that
the cost of transporting Ignite coal
in this state is more than the freight
receipts derived from such traffic.
It would be a needless task to re-
view this testimony at length. Suf-
flee it to say that such proof comes
far short of overcoming the prima
facie presumption that such statu-
tory rates are reasonable and valid.
Regarding the comparison of the
rates in other states with those fixed
by the act in question, we call at
tention to the language of the Min
nesota court in State VS.. Minneap-
oils & St. Louis r. Co., SO MIMI,
DID. 64-5, as follows. Counsel for
defendant claims something for tes-
timony as to rates received by other
roads for this class of service, and
by comparison asserts that the tariff
complained Of is too low. This meth
cd of ascertaining the reasonableness
of the tariff is valueless, because 1t
may that the other roads are exor-
bitant in their charges. That anoth-
|er road is receiving, say, one dollar
per ton for carrying coal one hun
dred miles, while defendant received
but seventy-five cents for the same
distance, may prove that the other
road charges too much, and should
be looked after by the commission;
but this kind of evidence does not
demonstrate that defendant is re-
ceiving too little and that the COM
mission has fixed an unfair and un-
reasonable tariff of rates on It's
lines" Also the language of the cir
cult court of the United States in
Smyth vs.. Ames, "a Fed. 1855, and
approved by the federal court in 169
U. s. $40, as follows: Companions,
therefore, between the rates Of two
states are of little value, unless all
the elements that enter into the
problem are presented" Even If this
character of evidence would be ad-
Missile when a proper foundation
has been laid for its Introduction
by showing a similarity of conditions
in the other states to those existing
in this state, no such proof was Of
fered. Furthermore the proof of
the foreign rates consisted of certain
copies of schedules of such rates and
from such copies, which are in no
way authenticated, defendants ex-
hibit e." which purports to be a
comparison of coal rates in various
states including North Dakota, was
compiled by rate clerks in defend
ants general offices. Not sciutilla
of proof Is offered to show that such
foreign rates are reasonable. For
these reasons such proof can be
given no effect by this court. Aside
from the attempted proof fthe un-
lreasonableness Of these rates by COM
parison with rates In other states,
defendants proof Of such alleged un-
reasonableness consists merely of
conclusions testified to by various
witnesses relative to the cost of
transporting ignite coal over its
lines of road. AS before stated, these
conclusions are based upon the err
roneous assumption that the new
rates relate merely to Ignite coal