The sun., 1918-07-03
GREAT NORTHERN'S
EARNINGS 81 P. G.
Receives So. 1895, 635 Cash in
Extra Dividend From the
Burlington.
SURPLUS Is Si08,550,7 100
Opcrating Revenue in 1917
Amounts to $88,598,735,
Showing Big Increase.

Thanks TO an extra dividend of 10 per
cent. agrregating s5,3s5,s35, from the
Chicago, burlington and Quincy Railroad
company. the Great Northern Railway
Company. according to the annual report
issued Yesterday, earned 90 per cent on
us outstanding s249,47S.25O capital
stock. 1t paid per cent, and after ap-
,roriatng the Burlington dividend as
A reserve for funding company obliga-
lions. the balance added to profit and
mss was only S131,013. Nevertheless
Great Northern's total surplus on De-
cer,ber 81 last was Sl0S.550. 1853, divided
as follows: Profit and loss. S59,651, 034 {:
cost OF additions and betterments paid
for from fund for permanent improve
rnents and betterments," $43.909,T15 (;
appreciation in value to March /. 1918.
Of miscellaneous lands owned December
81, 1915, sS.970.14s, and bonds retired
through sinking fund, sl,019,s72.
without the Burlington dividend. the
terort shows, the Great Northern's per
cent dividend was earned with less than
$1,000 to spare despite the fact that
the gross earnings were the largest in
the company's history. The percentage
earnings OF 90 compared with $50 per
cent in the half year ended December
81 1915, 1i.06 per cent. in the fiscal
year ended June 80. 1916. s.27 per cent
in the preceding year and "a range OF
IA per cent. TO 1859 per cent. between
June 80, 1907. and June 30, 1915.
Total operating revenue, according to
the annual report, amounted TO SIS, $685.
735 in 1917. This compared with Ss3,-
1870 In 1916 and ISL. 2S2,i7S in the
twelve months ended June 80. 1916.
Never before that period were the earn
ings above ss0,00o,000. Operating ex-
penses, however, expanded twice as fast
as gross The total in 1917 was s5s.2s2,-
1856. against $4s. 569. 201 in the preceding
year and only s37.34s,402 in the fiscal
wear ended June 80. 1915. Before that
date they did not exceed $4,000. 900.
Taxes amounted to s6,302.s52. compared
with S5,456,0S2 in the preceding year.
The net operating income OF s23, OF 3. 626.
compared with $29.l46,446 in 1916.
The Great Northern Railway Company
Issued no report for the calendar year
1916 but the new report provides the
following statement of comparative earn
ngs:
1917. Changes
Operating revenue eco, $3.50 735 Inc s, AZ. COS
Operating expenses. IS. 2s2l56 Inc. .10,1l2 %4
Net revenue '.,........ cosI657s Dec SOS eis
Taxes ................... 6.302.e52 Inc. S3s.s7o
Net after taxes ....... 23.0l36a6 Dec. 6l32.s2D
Louis w Hill, chairman OF the board
Of directors. in the annual report tells
about the expenditure of $7.Si7.2s2 for
additions and betterments. the acquisi-
ton OF the entire outstanding capital
stock OF the Great Northern Terminal
Railway Company. $4,000, 900: of the
Minneapolis Belt Line Company, $4,000
OOO. and OF the Great Northern Dock
Tha also
subscribed az par for $3150. 900 of the
capital stock of the Montana Eastern
Railway Company. paying 10 per cent.
thereon, making the total amount of that
co7lpany's stock subscribed for to date
$4,000 600 IT also acquired at par
S. coo 600 OF the capital stock of the
Great Northern Equipment Company.
Ne also describes the sale of steamships
by the subsidiary water transportation
companies ending their business opera
tons
During the year the Great Northern
won tax suit, which Mr. Hin discusses
as follows: THE Supreme Court OF
Minnesota, in a case of great Importance
10 the company. has decided that the
railway securities (stocks. bonds and
credts) owned by the company are
owned and held for railway purposes
ard are covered by the gross earnings
tax paid to the State OF Minnesota, and
hence not subject to ad valorem taxa
ton. In 1915 Ramsey county, Mimi,
undertook to subject said securities to
taxation and levied a tax of s1.603.-
ss4s3 against the company on account
Of the ownership OF railway stocks,
bonds and credits The tax thus levied
by Ramsey county was set aside by the
District Court of Ramsey county, Mimi.
and the action of the District Court has
been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Had the decision been against the COM
pary il would have been subject to a
demand for past taxes aggregating many
millions of dollars"