Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-03-08
Il. S. Judge Mcpherson Holds
They Do Not Give a Reason
able Return.
DECIDES SIX PER CENT is.
All Roads Involved Properly Built
And Are Economically
Managed.
Enforcement Of statute Means Confs-
cauon--Gov. lioadly Condemns De-
cision and Says Fight Not over.

kansas city, Mo. March S.--A not
rble decision i'm favor OF the railroads
,. handed down today by Judge Nc
ph.rson, OF the United states district
.llrt. In the cent fare and maximum
freight rate cases. involving is Missouri
lines. The railroads contended that the
rates fixed by the statutes of the state
were not remunerative but connscotorJ-.
end that the enforcement OF the stlt-
utas De enjoined, The state brought
proceedings to have them enforced.
.Jhe question" said Judge McPner-
s.n in his decision. 'is whether tho
traffic wholly within the state of Mis-
souri, generally referred Co I'm the evil
dences as local traffic. can Doe carried
under the freight rate statute Of 1897
AND the passenger fare statute Of 1907
a.. such profit ass win give "a reasonable
r.urn after paying expenses upon the
Investment, or whether such traffic is
carried at a. loss or less than such rea-
-Huable profit The court has reached
Che conclusion that upon this question
r.a statutory rates fixed by either ana
both statutes are not rcmunerative.'
BURDEN or PROOF.
n giving the reasons for such con-
ou-lons the decision says:
THE uuquestioned and undoubted
rule rs that there is "a presumption both
U. fact and OF law Zoo favor of the
validity OF every legislative enactment.
The railway companies have the bur
den Of removing this presumption, aud
lowing that the statute clearly. on as
some courts say, ualpably and others
soy. beyond a reasonable doubt. that
Tie statute is Invalid. In these cases
the court has recognized this rule Tho
authorities upon this question form r.
long and unhroken line, with the single
exception of the majority opinion Ia the
Pennsylvania case decided a year ago.
OBS an. Rep $50 And that one au-
t'oi7ty IS not persuasive"
GAS COMPANY CASE
Tho supreme court during the pres
ent year IN the case Of city Of New
Nurk VS.. Consolidated Gas companv OF
New York. decided that g per cent was
fair and right 10 BE- given 20 the owners
upon The true valuation. Ny opinion is
that while a gas plant is IN some re-
spect7 different from a railroad. that
o. railroad property properly built. and
properly managed, should over and
above expenses make a return OF s per
cent per annum. And considering all
the violence, the evidence fairly shows
that an of these roads We're properly
and economically built and are being
properly and economically managed,
and that after paying the expenses for
maintenance and operation. that there
is less than 6 per cent Of returns. and
not more than 3 per cent. upon any OF
them and as 90 some OF them deficit
ttiug the property as above stated
within the state OF Missouri al It's fair
'lllation. And this is SO without ref
cronco to bonds because IN no case do
,ho tpnds bear per cent interest
PASSENGER EARNINGS.
The passenger earnings under the
cent fare law of 1907. allowing nothing
for extra cost over interstate business.
give no return whatever 10 the Rock
island. ST. Louis & Hannibal Kansas
city Clinton g. Springfield. and the
Great Western. The other companies
VIII have the following: ST. Louis g.
San Francisco between and per
cent. the Santa Re between 4 and
per cent, the Kansas City Southern a
small fraction over 2 per cent the NJ.
is. q r. betweon 2 and 3 per cent: the
burlington between 3 ANA 4 per cent
sut an this is arrived 40 by allowing
u0 extra cost of service. But 10 add
tine extra cost for freight and rassen-
gers. there are no earnings over eN-
ponses. This is cOnfscati0n under tho
Constitution
ut being a legislative act, and not
GA judicial one. this court cannot fx
rates. II IL could 2la cent passenger
Ittos would De- fixed Cor the 70 .onger
roads, and 3 for tho others But that
is FOR the Legislature acting itself with
experts, such as the state employed
in these cases or through commission
with like ass stance"
Judge Mcpherson also says in the de-
c.sion when the statutes in ques-
N1n were enacted % was believed by
many that by reducing the fare there
would Doe much more travel. For a
month or so this proved TO be true.
But with the novelty gone. the testi-
Wnuy shows that the Increase has been
s than per cent and more nearly
usr cent?
lie says further as 10 the abolition Of
passes that tho evidence shows the
passenger revenue De- Increased by rca-
son thereof loss than q per cent
WHAT LAW DID.
The maXimum freight law as passed
hy thc Legislature involved reductions
ranging nom per cent 90 40 per cent
on heavy freight in carload lots The
railways secured "a court order tempo
urIIy restraining the state officials
from putting this ACT into effect ana
ou June N. 1907 Frank Hagerman, rep-
r.scntlnF the various railroads. pete
toned the court 10 make this order
permanent. By mutual agreement Hnd
at the suggestion of Judge McPhcrsnn,
Who desired 40 have "a practical test
Che 2-cent passenger rate law was pm
into effect on June ll. 1907 90 run three
months Az the end of that period both
Sides agreed 90 continue the ratio Iu
eject as the results obtained had NOT
been considered sufficient and ihe Jaw
l9 stiIl being enforced
After many delays the cases were
finally brought 90 trial before Judso
Mcpherson.
Both aldcs presented a long array on
rgures Go uphold their claims The
courtroom waf crowded today WIN
lawyers and railroad men eakpf 90 near
Judge Mcpherson's decision
VIEWS on ATTORNEYS.
Ailr tne decision bad hean hanut.
down. the Views ui fho attorney ot
both tldea of the controversy were