The Washington times., 1913-04-20

The first detailed comparative state
meht of the principal items shown in the
statements of the Washington banks in
response to the calls of the Comptroller
of the Currency of February and April
is given below. The statement is
| of particular interest at this time in
| view of the large increase in deposits
| In the Washington banks between the
| two calls.
State Senator T. i. eastman. who
drew the distance tariff bill, believes
! that means to make 1t stick will be
found no matter what the Supreme
Court decision may be. but AttorneS
| General Lyndon A. Smith points out
| that what the supreme Court may say
| In the Minnesota rate case will tell
| the story. and that in consequence OF
| this added Importance relative to It's
effect upon the distance tariff law, and.
! incidentally, the effect upon Iowa with
its existing distance tariff, the Minne-
sofa rate case IS of the first magni-
tude.
General Solicitor Rich, OF the Boston
and Maine railroad. points out in q
statement in the American Shippers
Gazette that the Supreme Court may
remand the case to the lower court and
warns financial interests not to be dis
appointed IL the Supreme Court does
not go as far as the circuit court. He
says:
There has been undue Apprehension
as to possible adverse decision in the
Minnesota rate case. The circuit court
made definite findings of law on facts
presented. 1t would be surprising IL ii
accurately interpreted the law in every
instance. 1t might be necessary to
send the case back to circuit court with
instructions to proceed under some
other Interpretation on some particular
point.
III the decision of the Supreme Court
supported the circuit court on every
point 1t would be a decision of tre
mendous Importance and establish the
railroads on a financial basis impreg-
nable to assault by State or Federal
Legislatures or commissions. 1t would
take from State governments practical
control of most State rates. thus ac-
centuating the movement toward Fed
eral control But more important
would be the determination of the
principle that railroad is entitled to
at least per cent, not On present
physical valuation, but on the cost of
reproducing.
.'It could be safely said. then, in case
Of, for instance. the New Haven, the
fair value would be not merely a hun
dred million in excess of liabilities, as
commission. but probably 5000 O0,O 600 ex-
cess assets.
Up to the present. the Supreme
Court has decided that a railroad is en-
Titled to a fair return on fair value
of property. In the Minnesota case
the circuit court attempted to determine |
elements entering into fair returns and |
fair value. 1t certainly would be
strange If the circuit court had not |
erred in some Of the numerous points
IF the decision of the Supreme Court |
should be adverse and the case re-
manded to the circuit court, it would |
probably be under instructions to be |
used as guide in rendering a new |
decision" |
One Of the most valuable and inter-
esting tabulations in "Washington Sc
curities. 1913" just issued by Eugene E. |
Thompson, is that giving the compare
tive condensed statements of all of the |
Washington banks as reported under |
the last nine calls of the Comptroller |
OF the Currency. from June I. 1911, to |
February 4. 1918, inclusive. The growth |
OF each bank during that period is thus |
fully set out.
Local investors in securities on the |
New York Stock Exchange will
anxiously await again tomorrow the
sitting of the Supreme Court. The de-
cision IN the Minnesota rate case, IL
1t comes. will inject life into the market
that has long been lacking. New in
terests in the rate case has been
aroused In the past week by the en-
actment in Minnesota of the distance
tariff bill. effective January /, 1914
The distance tariff bill provides that
the State Railroad Commission shall
make tariff schedules in accordance with
its provisions. In the Minnesota rate
case the lower courts brought out two
main points, in which the rulings were
against the State; the confiscatory char
acter of rates made by the State COM
mission, and interference with interstate
rates.
If the Supreme Court decision upholds
the lower courts ir all points, 1t means
the complete notification of the dis
tance tariff activities in this State. II
II upholds the lower courts In the find
ings on the confiscatory character of
the rates made oy the State commits
sion, but not in regard to the interfer-
ence with interstate rates, it will prob
ably bring on a legal fight within the
State.
Meanwhile the radical element in the
Minnesota Legislature. which will not
adjourn before April 30. Is saying that
If the Minnesota rate case Is lost to
the people of Minnesota, the Legislature
vi