The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-09-15

experts Of the railroad companies. Sat
urday the attorneys of the three roads,
as well as Attorney General Miller and
his eX-assistant, Mr., Young, present
ed evidence to the court, together with
arguments on the legal points involved.
Mr. Donneily representing the North
ern Pacific railroad, made the. first
argument to the court on behalf of the
carriers. He explained that the
Northern Pacific had compiled figures
FOR the fiscal year ending June /, 1911,
covering the intrastate coal traffic. The
Northern Pacific handled 4,412 cars of
coal during that time for which they
600.
The operating cost and taxes ac-
cordinG to Mr.. Donnelly amounted for
that period to approximately $4,000,
making total deficit of about $2,25O.
The operating cost was $58,782 00;, the
tax levied on the property of the
Northern Pacific Railroad Co. in North
Dakota amounts TO about Al per cent
on their gross income. This would
make their tax on the Ignite coal
business approximately $2,240.
This being true Mr.. DonnelIy ar
gued that the rate as fiNed by the 1907
statute was unreasonably low and
confiscatory. He contended that the
cost Of transporting Ignite was great
er than the cost of transporting ordi-
nary freight, owing to the nature OF
the coal and the fact that the heavy
traffic occurred largely in the winter
when the cost of operating was great
ly in excess of the cost during the
remainder Of the year.
He pointed out that Mr.. Little. one
of the states experts, used a different
system in arriving at the operating
cost and that his figures showed a
profit OF approximately 5000 on the
Ignite business done by. the Northern
Pacific in North Dakota. Mr.. Hill
man, the other state expert. found
that the profits are about 81 500: ne
therefore argued that the three cum
pntati"rs Of the cost of operating ex-
penses, chargeable to the ignite coal
traffic in North Dakota, were so near
ly alike in their conclusions that the
court would be justified in holding
that the Ignite coal traffic did not
contribute toward the net profits of
the carrier.
He contended that the decision of
the court at the former hearing OF
this case was erroneous in that it
held that so long as the schedule of
freight rates returned a reasonable
profit to the carrier no one commodity
could be singled out as having been
He contended that each and every
commodity must not only pay it's Just
share of the operating expenses of tho
railroad, but that it must show a neE
profit. He conceded that if the form =
er ruling of the court was the law
that the Northern Pacific had no de-
Tense in this action. since the lig-
mite coal traffic or such an infinitesi-
NAL part Of their business in North
n l. -
although they carried the coal at
loss, or for nothing, that it would
confiscate their property. He argued
that the rule of law was that where
common carriers or public service COR
porations eXacted excessive rates, the
state stepped in and invoked the po-
lice power to protect the public and
prohibit the excessive charge. He
contended that. the common carrier
was entitled to receive a reasonable
return over and above the actual cost
for every commodity carried.
Mr. yFreund appeared on behalf of the
Great Northern. Their net receipts
from the Ignite coal traffic were SI7,-
1856 while their operating expenses in
carrying this coal were $17,492.fa net
profit of $246. His arguments were
largely devoted to explaining the nror
cess by which the Great Northern arr
rived at their transportation cost. He
pointed out the interesting fast that itS
costs approximately three times as
much to transport the coal on branch
lines as it does on the main lines.
&C. l.. Young, ex-assistant attorney
general, argued the. case at, length on
behalf of the state. He assaiIed the
methods of computation of transport
.tation cost of all of the roads, espe-
cially of the Northern Pacific. He
took the Northern Pacific in view. Of
the fact that they have the most
scientific cost finding system of the
three roads. He analyzed at length
theiy system and arrived at the con
clusion that instead of a deficit of S2,-
ESQ on the Ignite business handled in
twelve months by the Northern Pa
cific. that they actually had a profit of
S2,391.16.
Attorney General Miller discussed at
length the legal question of the case,
upholding the doctrine which he advo-
Gated before the supreme court be-
fore, and which was enunciated in the
decision handed down in 1909.
This case will occupy the attention
of the supreme court judges for some
time as the records are yo1uminous and
the case is probably the most import
ant that the North Dakota court has
ever been called upon to pass upon.