St. Louis O'Fallon Railway Company v. United States/Opinion of the Court
These are cross-appeals from the final decree of the District Court, Eastern Missouri, three judges sitting, in a suit to annul an Interstate Commerce Commission order, dated February 15, 1927, which directed St. Louis & O'Fallon Railway Company to place in a reserve fund one-half of its determined excess income for the years 1920 (ten months), 1921, 1922, and 1923 (that is, half of the sum by which the net railway operating income for each of those years exceeded 6 per cent. of the ascertained value of property devoted to public service); and to pay to the Commission the remaining one-half, with 6 per cent. interest, beginning four months after termination of the year; i. e., May 1, 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924.

Section 15a, added to the Interstate Commerce Act by Transportation Act 1920, contains nineteen paragraphs (49 USCA § 15a). Of those specially important here, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are copied in the margin; 4 and 6 follow:

'(4) * * * For the purposes of this section, such aggregate      value of the property of the carriers shall be determined by the Commission from time to time and as often as may be      necessary. The Commission may utilize the results of its      investigation under section 19a of this Act, in so far as      deemed by it available, and shall give due consideration to      all the elements of value recognized by the law of the land for rate-making purposes, and shall give to the property      investment account of the carriers only that consideration      which under such law it is entitled to in establishing values      for rate-making purposes. Whenever pursuant to section 19a of      this Act the value of the railway property of any carrier      held for and used in the service of transportation has been      finally ascertained, the value so ascertained shall be deemed      by the Commission to be the value thereof for the purpose of      determining such aggregate value.'

'(6) * * * If, under the provisions of this section, any      carrier receives for any year a net railway operating income      in excess of 6 per centum of the value of the railway      property held for and used by it in the service of      transportation, one-half of such excess shall be placed in a      reserve fund established and maintained by such carrier, and      the remaining one-half thereof shall, within the first four      months following the close of the period for which such      computation is made, be recoverable by and paid to the      Commission for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a      general railroad contingent fund as hereinafter described.

For the purposes of this paragraph the value of the railroad      property and the net railway operating income of a group of      carriers, which the Commission finds are under common control      and management and are operated as a single system, shall be      computed for the system as a whole irrespective of the      separate ownership and accounting returns of the various      parts of such system. In the case of any carrier which has      accepted the provisions of section 209 of this amendatory Act      the provisions of this paragraph shall not be applicable to      the income for any period prior to September 1, 1920. The      value of such railway property shall be determined by the      Commission in the manner provided in paragraph (4).'

After an investigation instituted under section 15a, May 14, 1924, for the purpose of determining incomes received by St. Louis & O'Fallon Railway Company (the O'Fallon) and Manufacturers' Railway Company (the Manufacturers'), asserted to be parts of one system, for the years 1920-1923, the Commission found: (1) Although the stock of both corporations was mostly owned by the Adolph Busch estate, and their principal officers were the same, they were not carriers operated under common control and management as a single system within paragraph 6. (2) The Manufacturers' had received no excess operating income: (3) The value of the O'Fallon's property devoted to public service in 1920 (ten months) was $856,065; in 1921, $875,360; in 1922, $978,874; in 1923, $997,236; and during each of those years it received net operative income exceeding 6 per cent. upon the stated valuation.

The above-described recapture order followed.

The cause is properly here under the Judicial Code, as amended by Act of February 13, 1925 (U.S.C. tit, 28, § 345 (28 USCA § 345)):

'Sec. 238. A direct review by the Supreme Court of an      interlocutory or final judgment or decree of a district court may be had where it is so provided in the following      Acts or parts of Acts, and not otherwise: * * *

'(4) So much of 'An Act making appropriations to supply      urgent deficiencies in appropriations for the fiscal year      1913, and for other purposes,' approved October 22, 1913, as      relates to review of interlocutory and final judgments and      decrees in suits to enforce, suspend, or set aside orders of      the Interstate Commerce Commission other than for the payment      of money. * * *'

The Act of October 22, 1913 (38 Stat. 219, 220), transferred to District Courts the jurisdiction granted to the Commerce Court by Act of June 18, 1920 (36 Stat. 539), and provided for review by this court of causes embraced therein. The jurisdiction for the Commerce Court included:

'First. All cases for the enforcement, otherwise than by      adjudication and collection of a forfeiture or penalty or by      infliction of criminal punishment, of any order of the      Interstate Commerce Commission other than for the payment of      money.

'Second. Cases brought to enjoin, set aside, annul, or      suspend in whole or in part any order of the Interstate      Commerce Commission. * * *'

Paragraph (4), § 238, applies to all those causes formerly cognizable by the Commerce Court and reviewable here. The words 'other than for the payment of money' were taken from clause first, Act of 1910, above quoted, and, as there, they delimit the trial court's jurisdiction. They do not inhibit review here of any cause formerly cognizable by the Commerce Court. Moreover, the order under consideration was not merely for payment of money; and the proceeding below was to set aside, not to enforce it.

Wisconsin Railroad Commission v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 257 U.S. 563, 42 S.C.t. 232, 66 L. Ed. 371, 22 A. L. R. 1086, and Dayton-Goose Creek Railway Co. v. United States, 263 U.S. 456, 44 S.C.t. 169, 68 L. Ed. 388, 33 A. L. R. 472, point out the general purpose of the Transportation Act 1920, and uphold the validity of section 15a.

The Manufacturers' is a switching road with 30 miles of track within St. Louis, Mo. The O'Fallon-a coal-carrying road-has 9 miles of main line, all in Illinois, and this connects with the Terminal Railroad at East St. Louis. Through the latter deliveries are made to sundry points in St. Louis, some of which are on the Manufacturers' line. 'The distance between the railroad of the O'Fallon and the railroad of the Manufacturers' is about 12 miles, and all communication by rail between the two properties is effected over the tracks of the Terminal, including a bridge over the Mississippi River.' Both the Commission and the District Court held that the record failed to show these two roads were under common control and management and operated as a single system within the meaning of paragraph 6. We accept their conclusion.

The Commission directed the O'Fallon to pay 6 per cent. interest on the recaptured one-half of its ascertained excess net railway operating income beginning four months from the end of the year during which the excess accrued (paragraph 6). The District Court rightly ruled that, as the carrier made bona fide denial of any excess under circumstances sufficient to justify a contest, no interest should have been imposed for any time prior to the final order. Not until then could the carrier know what, if anything, it should pay.

Also, we think the District Court rightly rejected the claim that excess earnings were not recapturable unless and until the Commission had fixed a general level of rates intended to yield fair return upon the aggregate value of carrier property either as a whole, or in some prescribed rate or territorial group. Congress, of course, realized that final valuations would require prodigious expenditure of time and effort; but the language concerning recapture indicates that prompt action was expected. Practical application of paragraphs 5 and 6 does not necessarily depend upon prior compliance with paragraphs 2 and 3. The act should be construed so as to carry out the legislative purpose. The proviso of paragraph 3 prescribing action to be taken during two years beginning March 1, 1920, and the clause of paragraph 6 excepting the income of certain roads prior to September 1, 1920, are hardly compatible with this claim by the carrier.

Paragraph 4, § 15a, directs that, in determining values of railway property for purposes of recapture, the Commission 'shall give due consideration to all the elements of value recognized by the law of the land for rate-making purposes, and shall give to the property investment account of the carriers only that consideration which under such law it is entitled to in establishing values for rate-making purposes.' This is an express command; and the carrier has clear right to demand compliance therewith. United States ex rel. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 U.S. 178, 40 S.C.t. 187, 64 L. Ed. 517.

'The elements of value recognized by the law of the land for rate-making purposes' have been pointed out many times by this Court. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 18 S.C.t. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819; Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U.S. 19, 29 S.C.t. 192, 53 L. Ed. 382, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1134, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034; Minnesota Rate Case, 230 U.S. 352, 33 S.C.t. 729, 57 L. Ed. 1511, 48 L. R. A. (N .S.) 1151, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 276, 43 S.C.t. 544, 67 L. Ed. 981, 31 A. L. R. 807; Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 679, 43 S.C.t. 675, 67 L. Ed. 1176; McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Co., 272 U.S. 400, 47 S.C.t. 144, 71 L. Ed. 316. Among them is the present cost of construction of reproduction.

Thirty years ago, Smyth v. Ames announced (546 of 169 U.S. (18 S.C.t. 434)): 'We hold, however, that the basis of all calculations as to the reasonableness of rates to be charged by a corporation maintaining a highway under legislative sanction must be the fair value of the property being used by it for the convenience of the public. And in order to ascertain that value, the original cost of construction, the amount expended in permanent improvements, the amount and market value of its bonds and stock, the present as compared with the original cost of construction, the rrobable earning capacity of the property under particular rates prescribed by statute, and the sum required to meet operating expenses, are all matters for consideration, and are to be given such weight as may be just and right in each case. We do not say that there may not be other matters to be regarded in estimating the value of the property. What the company is entitled to ask is a fair return upon the value of that which it employs for the public convenience. On the other hand, what the public is entitled to demand is that no more be exacted from it for the use of a public highway than the services rendered by it are reasonably worth.'

In Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission (page 287 of 262 U.S. (43 S.C.t. 546)) we said: 'It is impossible to ascertain what will amount to a fair return upon properties devoted to public service without giving consideration to the cost of labor, supplies, ect., at the time the investigation is made. An honest and intelligent forecast of probable future values made upon a view of all the relevant circumstances, is essential. If the highly important element of present costs is wholly disregarded such a forecast becomes impossible. Estimates for tomorrow cannot ignore prices of today.'

The doctrine above stated has been consistently adhered to by this court.

The report of the Commission is long and argumentative. Much of it is devoted to general observations relative to the method and purpose of making valuations; many objections are urged to doctrine approved by us; and the superiority of another view is stoutly asserted. It carefully refrains from stating that any consideration whatever was given to present or reproduction costs in estimating the value of the carrier's property. Four dissenting Commissioners declare that reproduction costs were not considered; and the report itself confirms their view. Two of the majority avow a like understanding of the course pursued.

The following from the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Hall, concurred in by three others, accurately describes the action of the Commission:

'In order to determine the value of the O'Fallon property      devoted to carrier service during the recapture periods, 10      months in the year 1920 and the years 1921, 1922, and 1923,      we start with a valuation or inventory date of June 30, 1919.      The units in existence on that date are known. Original cost      of the entire property cannot be ascertained. As to the      man-made units we estimate the cost of reproducing them in      their condition on that date and in so doing apply to the      units installed prior to June 30, 1914, the unit prices of      1914, representing a fairly consistent price level for the      preceding 5 or 10 years. To like units, installed after June      30, 1914, and prior to June 30, 1919, we apply the same      prices, but add a sum representing price increases on those      units during that period. For the third period, from June 30,      1919, down to each recapture date, we abandon estimate and      turn to recorded net cost of additions less retirements. On      this composite, made up of estimated value for two periods      and ascertained net cost for the third period, the majority      base a conclusion as to value at recapture date of the      man-made items. Land goes in at its current value as measured      by that of neighboring lands.

'Without summarizing the other processes, all clearly stated      in the majority report, it will be observed that the      rate-making value arrived at for the successive recapture      periods, as for example the year 1923, rests upon 1923 market value of lands; costs of other property installed      since June 30, 1919; unit prices of 1914, enhanced by      allowance for increased cost of units installed during June      30, 1914-1919; and, for the units installed prior to June 30,      1914, constituting by far the major part of the property,      unit prices of 1914 without any enhancement whatever. As to      this major part of the carrier's property devoted to carrier      purposes in 1923 no consideration is given to costs and      prices then obtaining or to increase therein since 1914.'

In the exercise of its proper function, this court has declared the law of the land concerning valuations for rate-making purposes. The commission disregarded the approved rule and has thereby failed to discharge the definite duty imposed by Congress. Unfortunately, proper heed was denied the timely admonition of the minority-'The function in this commission is not to act as an arbiter in economics, but as an agency of Congress, to apply the law of the land to facts developed of record in matters committed by Congress to our jurisdiction.'

The question on which the Commission divided is this: When seeking to ascertain the value of railroad property for recapture purposes, must it give consideration to current, or reproduction, costs? The weight to be accorded thereto is not the matter before us. No doubt there are some, perhaps many, railroads the ultimate value of which should be placed far below the sum necessary for reproduction. But Congress has directed that values shall be fixed upon a consideration of present costs along with all other pertinent facts; and this mandate must be obeyed.

It was deemed unnecessary by the court below to determine whether the Commission obeyed the statutory direction touching valuations since the order permitted the O'Fallon to retain an income great enough to negative any suggestion of actual confiscation. With this we cannot agree. Whether the Commission acted as directed by Congress was the fundamental question presented. If it did not, the action taken, being beyond the authority granted, was invalid. The only power to make any recapture order arose from the statute.

The judgment of the court below must be reversed. A decree will be entered here annulling the challenged order.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice BUTLER took no part in the consideration or determination of this cause.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (dissenting).

The main question for consideration is that of statutory construction. By Transportation Act 1920, February 28, 1920, c. 91, § 15a, 41 Stat. 456, 488 (49 USCA § 15a), Congress delegated to the Interstate Commerce Commission the duty to establish and maintain rates which will yield 'a fair return upon the aggregate value of the railway property' of the United States. By paragraph 4 thereof, it directs that in ascertaining value the Commission shall 'give due consideration to all the elements of value recognized by the law of the land for rate-making purposes,' and shall 'give to the property investment account * * * only that consideration which under such law it is entitled to in establishing values for rate-making purposes.' The report of the Commission, which accompanies the order challenged, declares: 'In the methods of valuation which we have followed in this proceeding we have endeavored to give heed to this direction (that contained in paragraph 4). * * *' Excess Income of St. Louis & O'Fallon Ry. Co., 124 I. C. C. 3, 19. Speaking for the dissenting members, Mr. Commissioner Hall said: 'If the law needs change, let those who made it change it. Our duty is to apply the law as it stands.' Pages 63, 64. And Mr. Commissioner Aitchison added: 'If we anticipate grave results will follow, our responsibility will be fully met if we suggest to the Congress, under our statutory powers to recommend new legislation to that body, the enactment of a rule for rate making under the commerce clause which will have no such unfavorable effects.' Page 64.

Section 15a makes no specific reference either to the original cost of the property, or to prudent investment, or to current reproduction cost, or to the then existing price level. Section 19a (49 USCA § 19a)-the valuation provisions of the Act of 1913-to which section 15a refers, directs the Commission to report, among other things, 'in detail as to each piece of property, * * * the original cost to date, the cost of reproduction new, the cost of reproduction less depreciation'; and also 'other values, and elements of value.' After the enactment of section 15a and before entry of the order challenged, it was held in Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 276, 43 S.C.t. 544, 67 L. Ed. 981, 31 A. L. R. 807, a case arising under a state law, that the rate base on which a public utility is constitutionally entitled to earn a fair return is the then actual value of the property used and useful in the business, not the original cost or the amount prudently invested in the enterprise. The government concedes that current reproduction cost is admissible as evidence to show present value under section 15a. The carrier concedes now that neither Congress nor the common law made current reproduction cost the measure of value. The question on which the Commission divided is this: Did Congress require the Commission, when acting under section 15a, to give, in all cases and in respect to all property, some, if not controlling, effect to evidence establishing the estimated current cost of reproduction? Or did Congress intend to leave to the Commission the authority to determine, as in passing upon other controvered issued of fact, what weight, if any, it should give to that evidence?

The O'Fallon contends, among other things, that the order is confiscatory. The claim is that the order left to the company a return of only 4.35 per cent. upon the value ascertained in accordance with the rule declared in the Southwestern Bell Case and McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Co., 272 U.S. 400, 47 S.C.t. 144, 71 L. Ed. 316. If this were true, it would be immaterial whether Congress purported to authorize the course pursued by the Commission. But the fact is that in each of the recapture periods the earnings were so large as to leave, after making the required payments to the Commission, about 8 per cent. on what the carrier alleged was the fair value of the property. The O'Fallon argues that, since the statute, and the order required it to hold as a reserve one-half of the excess over 6 per cent., it is deprived of that property. This is not true. The requirement that one-half of the earnings in excess of 6 per cent. shall be retained by the carrier until the reserve equals 5 per cent. of the value of the railroad does not deprive the carrier of any property. It merely regulates the use thereof. Compare Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. United States, 231 U.S. 423, 453, 34 S.C.t. 125, 58 L. Ed. 296, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1. The provision is one designed to secure financial stability, and is similar to those prescribing sinking funds, depreciation, and other appropriate accounts.  Congress may regulate the use of railroad property so as to insure financial as well as physical stability. Both are essential to the safety and the service of the public. In Dayton-Goose Creek R. Co. v. United States, 263 U.S. 456, 486, 44 S.C.t. 169, 68 L. Ed. 388, 33 A. L. R. 472, where the facts were in this respect identical with those in the case at bar, the constitutional validity of the order was sustained. If the failure to give to the evidence of current reproduction costs the effect claimed for it by the O'Fallon was error, it is not because the carrier's constitutional rights have been invaded, but because the Commission failed to observe a rule prescribed by Congress for determining the amounts to be recaptured and reserved.

The claim of the O'Fallon is in substance that, since construction costs were higher during the recapture periods than in 1914, the order should be set aside, because the Commission failed to find that the existing structural property and equipment which had been acquired before June 30, 1914, was worth more than it had been then.  The Commission undertook, as will be shown, to find present actual value, and, in so doing, both to follow the direction of Congress and to apply the rule declared in the Southwestern Bell Case. It is true that this court there declared that current reconstruction cost is an element of actual value, and that Congress directed the Commission 'to give due consideration to all the elements of value recognized by the law of the land for rate-making purposes.' But while the act required the Commission to consider all such evidence, neither Congress nor this court required it to give to evidence of reconstruction cost a mechanical effect or artificial weight. They left untrammeled its duty to give to all relevant evidence such probative force as, in its judgment, the evidence inherently possesses. The Commission concluded that in respect to the evidence of reproduction costs the differences between the Southwestern Bell Case and that at bar were such as to lead to different results in the two cases. It did so mainly because 'in the administration of the valuation and recapture provisions,' ascertainment of value 'is affected by a vast variety of considerations that either do not enter into, or are less easily perceived in, problems incident to the regulation of local public utilities.' Page 27. In my opinion the conclusions of the Commission are well founded. To make clear the reasons, requires consideration of the function of the Commission in applying section 15a and of the problems with which it is confronted.

First. The Commission is a fact-finding body. The question whether it must give to confessedly relevant facts evidential effect is solely one of adjective law. Statutes have sometimes limited the weight or effect of evidence. They have often created rebuttable presumptions and have shifted the burden of proof. But no instance has been found where under our law a fact-finding body has been required to give to evidence an effect which it does not inherently possess. Proof implies persuasion. To compel the human mind to infer in any respect that which observation and logic tells us is not true interferes with the process of reasoning of the fact-finding body. It would be a departure from the unbroken practice to require an artificial legal conviction where no real conviction exists. 

An arbitrary disregard by the Commission of the probative effect of evidence would, of course, be ground for setting aside an order, as this would be an abuse of discretion. Orders have been set aside because entered without evidence;  or because matters of fact had been considered which were not in the record;  or because the Commission excluded from consideration facts and circumstances which ought to have been considered;  or because it took into consideration facts which could not legally influence its judgment.  But no case has been found in which this court has set aside an order on the ground that the Commission failed to give effect to evidence which seemed to the court to be of probative force, or on the ground that the Commission had drawn from the evidence an inference or conclusion deemed by the court to be erroneous.  On the contrary, findings of the Commission involving the appeciation or effect of evidence have been treated with the deference due to those of a tribunal 'informed by experience' and 'appointed by law' to deal with an intricate subject. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 206 U.S. 441, 454, 27 S.C.t. 700, 51 L. Ed. 1128. Unless, therefore, Congress required the Commission, not only to consider evidence of reconstruction cost in ascertaining values for rate-making purposes under section 15a, but also to give, in all cases and in respect to all property, some weight to evidence of enhanced reconstruction cost, even if that evidence was not inherently persuasive, the Commission was clearly authorized to determine for itself to what extent, if any, weight should be given to the evidence; and its findings should not be disturbed by the court, unless it appears that there was an abuse of discretion.

Second. While current reproduction cost may be said to be an element in the present value of property, in the sense that it is 'evidence properly to be considered in the ascertainment of value,' Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 268 U.S. 146, 156, 45 S.C.t. 465, 467 (69 L. Ed. 890), it is clear that current cost of reproduction higher than the original cost does not necessarily tend to prove a present higher value. Often the fact of higher reconstruction cost is without any influence on present values. It is common knowledge that the current market value of many office buildings and residences constructed prior to the World War have failed to reflect the greatly increased building costs of recent years, although the need of new buildings of like character was being demonstrated by the large volume of construction at the higher price level. Many railroads built before the World War have never been worth as much as their original cost, because high construction cost combined with adverse operating conditions and limited traffic have at all times prevented their earning, despite reasonable rates, a fair return on the original cost. The Puget Sound extension of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul is a notable example.  Many branches, and indeed whole lines of railroad, have been scrapped since 1920. Abandonment of 2,439 miles of railroad was authorized under paragraph 18 of section 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 USCA § 1(18), between 1920 and 1925, and in the three following years 2,010 miles more.  These properties had, in the main, become valueless for transportation, either because traffic ceased to be available, or because competitive means of transportation precluded the establishment of remunerative rail rates.  Obviously, no one would contend that their actual value just before abandonment was what it originally cost to construct them or what it would then have cost to reconstruct them.

Third. The terms of section 15a and its legislative history preclude the assumption that Congress intended by paragraph 4 to deny to the Commission in respect to evidence of reconstruction cost the discretion commonly exercised in determining what weight, if any, shall be given to an evidential fact. In 1920, no fact was more prominent in the mind of the public and of Congress than that the cost of living was far greater than that prevailing when the existing railroads were built.  But neither in Transportation Act 1920, nor in any committee report, is there even a suggestion that the Commission would be required to give to that fact any effect in ascertaining values for rate-making purposes under section 15a. If it had been the intention of Congress to compel the Commission to increase values for rate-making purposes because the price level had risen, it would naturally have incorporated such a direction in the paragraph. On the other hand, the committee reports and the debates show that the opinion was quite commonly held that the actual values were less than the property investment account appearing on the books of the carriers;  and the proposal made by the railroads that the investment account be accepted as the measure of value was resisted as being excessive.  The property investment account in 1920 was about 19 billions of dollars.  The then reproduction cost of the railroads, applying index figures to estimated actual cost, was over 40 billions.  It is inconceivable that Congress, after rejecting property investment account as excessive, intended by section 15a to make mandatory on the Commission the consideration of elements which would give a valuation double that which had been rejected. The insertion in section 15a of the provision that the Commission 'shall give to the property investment account of the carriers only that consideration which under such law it is entitled to in establishing values for rate-making purposes,' and the rejection of other proposed measures of value, show that Congress intended not to impose restrictions upon the discretion of the Commission. 

Congress did intend to provide a return on the existing railroad property which should be only slightly more than that which had been enjoyed during the six preceding years. To have required that the then price level be reflected in the values to be fixed under section 15a would have resulted in a rate base of double the property investment account of the carriers; for the cost of living was then about double prewar prices. The prescribed fair return applied to such a rate base would have produced more than double the average net earnings from operation of the several properties during the three years preceding federal control; more than double and amount which the carriers agreed to accept under the Federal Control Act, March 21, 1918, c. 25, § 1, 40 Stat. 451, as fair compensation for the use of their property; more than double the guaranty provided by Transportation Act 1920, § 209 (49 USCA § 77), for the six-month period after the surrender of control. The sum which the railroads had thus earned net in those six years equalled 5.2 per cent. on the property investment account, as carried on their books.

In making provision for a fair return, the main purpose was not to increase the earnings of capital already invested in railroads, but to attract the new capital needed for improvement or extension of facilities.  This was to be accomplished by raising the rate or return from 5.2 per cent. to 5.5 per cent. (Senate Reports, vol. 1, No. 304, 66th Cong. 1st Sess.):

'The basis adopted by the Committee is three tenths of 1 per      cent. higher than the basis of the test period (the three      years preceding June 30, 1917); and assuming, though not      conceding that the value of the property is equal to the      property investment accounts, it will yield for all the      railways a net operating income of $54,000,000 in excess of      the income of the test period. There were two considerations      which led the majority of the committee to believe that this increase is not only warranted but      necessary:

'First. The railways are being returned to their owners when      everything is unsettled and abnormal; when there is suspicion      and distrust everywhere. Just what rate of return will enable      the carriers to finance themselves under such conditions      cannot, with certainty be determined. It was felt, therefore,      that some increase over the prewar period was justifiable.

'Second. As compared with all kinds of commodities, money is      must less valuable than it was a few years ago, and it would      seem to be only fair that the returns from railway      investments should be reasonably advanced.'

The means by which the bill was to accomplish the desired end are thus stated in the report:

'First: By prescribing a basis of return upon the value of      the railway property, to give such assurance to investors as      will incline them to look with favor upon railway securities;      that is to say, be making a moderate return reasonably      certain to establish credit for the carriers.

'Second: In making the return fairly certain to secure for      the public a lower capital charge than would otherwise be      necessary.

'Third: In requiring some carriers, which under any given      body of rates will earn more than a fair return, to pay the      excess to the Government and in so using this excess that      transportation facilities or credit can be furnished to the      weaker carriers, and thus help to maintain the general system      of transportation.'

Either increase in the rate of return or increase of the base on which that return is measured would have served to adjust compensation to higher price levels. The adoption by Congress of the increase in the return, as the means of compensating for the decreased purchasing power of the dollar, precludes the assumption that it intended that the valuation should reflect that lessened purchasing power. By explicitly choosing the former Congress implicitly rejected the latter.  For to have allowed an increase in both would have gone beyond adjusting earnings to increased costs and have made this increase a mere pretext for allowing unwarranted profits to the railroads. The proceedings which led to the passage of the act make it clear that Congress intended no such result.

Fourth. The declared purpose of Congress in enacting section 15a was the maintenance of an adequate national system of railway transportation, capable of providing the best possible service to the public at the lowest cost consistent with full justice to the private owners. Following the course consistently pursued by this court in applying other provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U.S. 197, 211, 219, 16 S.C.t. 666, 40 L. Ed. 940; New England Divisions Case, 261 U.S. 184, 189, 190, 43 S.C.t. 270, 67 L. Ed. 605; Dayton-Goose Creek Ry. Co. v. United States, 263 U.S. 456, 478, 44 S.C.t. 169, 68 L. Ed. 388, 33 A. L. R. 472, the Commission construed section 15a in the light of the declared purpose of Congress and of the economic factors involved. From its wide knowledge of actual conditions and its practical experience in rate making, it concluded that to give effect to enhanced reproduction costs would defeat that purpose. Page 27.

It knew that the value for rate-making purposes could not be more than that sum on which a fair return could be earned by legal rates, and that the earnings were limited both by the commercial prohibition of rates higher than the traffic would bear and the legal prohibition of rates higher than are just and reasonable. It knew that a ratebase fluctuating with changes in the level of general prices would imperil industry and commerce. It knew that the adoption of a fluctuating rate-base would not, as is claimed, do justice to those prewar investors in railroad securities who were suffering from the lessened value of the dollar, since the great majority of the railroad securities are represented by long-term bonds or the guaranteed stocks of leased lines which bear a fixed return, and that only the stockholders could gain through the greater earnings required to satisfy the higher rate base. It recognized that an adequate national system of railways, so long as it is privately owned, cannot be provided and maintained without a continuous inflow of capital; that, 'obviously, also, such an inflow of capital can only be assured by treatment of capital already invested which will invite and encourage further investment' (Page 30); and that, as was said in Dayton-Goose Creek Ry. Co. v. United States, 263 U.S. 456, 481, 44 S.C.t. 169, 173 (68 L. Ed. 388, 33 A. L. R. 472): 'By investment in a business dedicated to the public service the owner must recognize that, as compared with investment in private business, he cannot expect either high or speculative dividends but that his obligation limits him to only fair or reasonable profit.' 

The conviction that there would in time be a fall in the price level was generally held. As a fluctuating rate base would thus directly imperil industry and commerce and investments made at relatively high price levels during and since the World War,  would tend to increase the cost of new money required to supply adequate service to the public, and would discourage such investment, the Commission concluded that Congress could and have intended to require it to measure the value or rate base by reproduction cost, since this would produce a result contrary to its declared purpose. And, as confirming its construction of section 15a, the Commission showed that, with the stable rate base which it had accepted as the basis for administering the act, the aim of Congress to establish an adequate national system had been attained. It pointed out that: 'During the period 1920-1926, inclusive, the investment in railroad property increased by 4 billions of dollars. A substantial part of this money was derived from income, but much of it was obtained by the sale of new securities. The market for railroad securities since the passage of the transportation act, 1920, has steadily improved and the general trend of interest rates has been downward. The credit of the railroads in general is now excellent. * * *' Page 33.

Fifth. Other considerations confirm the construction given by the Commission to the phrase 'value for rate making purposes,' as used in section 15a. In condemnation proceedings, the owner recovers what he has lost by the taking of the property, Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston, 217 U.S. 189, 195, 30 S.C.t. 459, 54 L. Ed. 725, and such loss must be determined, 'not merely with reference to the uses to which it is at the time applied, but with reference to the uses to which it is plainly adapted.' Mississippi & R. Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403, 408 (25 L. Ed. 206). Compare Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Co., 197 U.S. 430, 435, 25 S.C.t. 466, 49 L. Ed. 819. But the actual value of a railroad-its value for rate-making purposes under section 15a-may be less than its condemnation value. As was said in Southern Ry. Co. v. Kentucky, 274 U.S. 76, 81, 82, 47 S.C.t. 542, 544 (71 L. Ed. 934) a case involving state taxation: 'The value of the physical elements of a railroad-whether that value be deemed actual cost, cost of reproduction new, cost of reproduction less depreciation or some other figure-is not the sole measure of or guide to its value in operation. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 547 (18 S.C.t. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819). Much weight is to be given to present and prospective earning capacity at rates that are reasonable, having regard to traffic available and competitive and other conditions prevailing in the territory served.'

Value has been defined as the ability to command the price.  Railroad property is valuable as such only if, and so far as, used. If rates are too high, the traffic will not move. Hence the value or rate base is necessarily dependent, in the first place, upon the commercial ability of the property to command the rates which will yield a return in excess of operating expenses and taxes; and such value cannot be higher than the sum on which, with the available traffic, the fair return fixed under section 15a can be earned. Persistent depression of rates or lessening volume of traffic, from whatever cause arising, ordinarily tends to lower actual values of railroad properties. It follows that, since the Commission is required by the rule of Smyth v. Ames, reaffirmed in the Southwestern Bell Case, to determine the rate base under section 15a by actual value as distinguished from prudent investment, it must, in making the finding, consider the effect upon value of both the commercial and the legal limitations upon rates, and, among other things, the effect of competition upon the volume of traffic.

Recent experience affords striking examples of commercial limitations upon rates. In Ex parte 74, Increased Rates, 1920, 58 I. C. C. 220, the Commission sought to establish rates which would yield 6 per cent. upon the aggregate values of the railroads in the several groups. The carriers claimed as the aggregate value $20,040,572,611-that amount being carried on their books as the cost of road and equipment. The Commission fixed the value about 5 per cent. lower-at $18,900,000,000. In order to produce on that sum net earnings equal to 6 per cent., it increased freight rates, in the eastern group, 40 per cent. over the then existing rates; in the southern group, 25 per cent.; in the western group 35 per cent.; and, in the mountain-Pacific group, 25 per cent.  As a result of these increases, the average gross revenue per ton mile in 1921 was in the eastern district 96.1 per cent. greater than for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1914; in the southern, 61.4; in the western, 59.3; and in the United States as a whole, 76.2. Reduced Rates, 1922, 68, I. C. C. 676, 702. Passenger rates were subjected by the order in Ex parte 74, to a flat increase of 20 per cent., and surcharges were added. Page 242 of 58 I. C. C. 

On a large number of basic commodities, which were among the most important articles of commerce, the rates proved to be higher than the traffic would bear. Reductions became imperative. Within a year after the entry of that order, many applications for reductions were made to the Commission, not only by shippers, but also by the carriers themselves. It was estimated that the reductions in freight rates made by the carriers prior to March 15, 1922, would aggregate for that year $186,700,000, and would lower the general rate level nearly 5 per cent. On some important articles of traffic the entire increase made by Ex parte 74 was canceled.  Further reductions were then ordered by Reduced Rates 1922, 68 I. C. C. 676, pages 732, 733, the Commission saying: 'High rates do not necessarily mean high revenues, for, if the public cannot or will not ship in normal volume, less revenue may result than from lower rates. Shippers almost unanimously contend, and many representatives of the carriers agree, that 'freight rates are too high and must come down.' This indicates that transportation charges have mounted to a point where they are impeding the free flow of commerce and thus tending to defeat the purpose for which they were established, that of producing revenues which would enable the carriers 'to provide the people of the United States with adequate transportation." Further reductions made in the year 1923 are said to have again lowered freight rates 5 per cent.  The effect of the several reductions made in the rates authorized by Ex parte 74 is said to have lowered by $800,000,000 the freight charges otherwise payable on the traffic carried during the eighteen months ending December 31, 1923.  Each year since has witnessed a further lowering in the revenue per ton mile and per passenger mile. 

This constant lowering of the weighted average of rates since 1920 must have been due to causes other than desire on the part of the Commission. Its aim was to adjust rates so that they would yield the prescribed return. But, for the period from 1920 to 1927, inclusive, there was only one year in which the railroads of the United States as a whole, despite general prosperity and greater efficiency, earned on the value found in Ex parte 74 brought down to date, the full average return prescribed as fair under section 15a.  The Commission repeatedly refused to permit carriers to make reductions, because the reduction would lower the revenues sought to be provided under section 15a  On the other hand, carriers, although earning less than the fair return prescribed under section 15a, have often voluntarily reduced rates.  The lowering of rates was probably due in large measure to the influence of competing means of transportation. 

Sixth. Since 1914, the railroads have been obliged, to an ever-increasing extent, to compete with water lines and with motors. This competition has been fostered by the government  through the Panama Canal Act,  through the intracoastal waterways acts,  through the inland waterways acts,  through the development of coastwise shipping by means of harbor improvements,  and through federal aid in the construction of highway.  There has also been increased competition by pipe lines. Competition from other means of transportation has tended to arrest the normal increase in the volume of rail traffic; and, as to some traffic, it has actually produced a reduction in both the volume and the rates. It has resulted in a general shrinkage in the passenger business,  in some regions, in a lessening of the carload freight;  and, in many, in a reduction of the volume of the less than carload freight. 

The influence of water competition on rates is strikingly illustrated by the effect of the Panama Canal on transcontinental freight rates.  In order to meet this water competition, carriers have repeatedly asked leave to make sweeping reductions.  Rates voluntarily established by the rail carriers are lower now, on some articles of traffic, than they were in 1914. On others they are only a little higher.  The influence of competition by the inland waterways on the volume of rail traffic is illustrated in the effect which improvement of the Ohio river and its tributaries has had in the Pittsburg district. The rail tonnage in 1927 was materially less than in 1914, while the water tonnage more than doubled.  The influence of barge lines in reducing or holding down rail rates is illustrated by the rail rates in competition with those of the barge lines on the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the Warrior rivers.  The widespread effect of competition by motortruck in lowering both the rates and volume of rail traffic is obvious.  Not obvious, but indisputable, has been the effect of the potential competition of pipe lines shown by reductions in oil rates caused by the threat of competing pipe lines. 

Moreover, rates which are not so high as to prevent commercially the movement of traffic are often required to be lowered because they conflict with some statutory provision. Thus Congress compels reduction of rates which discriminate unjustly against individuals, localities, articles of traffic, or other carriers. Perhaps the most striking instance of the limitation by law of rates which the traffic would bear commercially is furnished by cases under the long and short haul clause. By that clause, a rail carrier is often obliged (unless relieved by order of the Commission) to elect between suffering practically a total loss of existing traffic between competitive points or suffering a loss in existing revenues by reducing rates at both the competitive points and intermediate noncompetitive points. The effect of this limitation upon rates, and hence upon the actual value of railroads, has become very great. Its influence has grown steadily with the growth of competition by water and motor, with the growth in the size of the individual railroad system, with the growth in the dependence of railroads for their revenues upon long-haul freight traffic and with the growing length of the average haul.  It has become so important for rail carriers to hold a share of the long-haul freight traffic at competitive points, that the long and short haul clause, if not relieved from, results in the carriers' giving, in large measure, to the intermediate noncompetitive points which otherwise would be subject to monopoly exactions, the full benefit of that lowering of rates required to meet the competition. The many applications for reductions made in petitions for relief from the operation of the long and short haul clause illustrate the influence of rail, as well as of water and motor, competition in thus depressing rates.  Congress has by that clause limited values for rate-making purposes under section 15a, almost as effectively as by its promotion of competitive means of transportation.

Seventh. In requiring that the value be ascertained for rate-making purposes, Congress imposed upon the rate base as defined in Smyth v. Ames, still another limitation which is far-reaching in its operation. By declaring in section 15a that the Commission shall, 'in the exercise of its power to prescribe just and reasonable rates' so adjust them that upon the value a fair return may be earned 'under honest, efficient and economical management' Congress made efficiency of the plant an element or test of value.  Efficiency and economy imply employment of the right instrument and material as well as their use in the right manner. To use a machine, after a much better and more economical one has become available, is as inefficient as to use two men to operate an efficient machine, when the work could be performed equally well by one, at half the labor cost. Such an instrument of transportation, although originally well conceived and remunerative, should, like machines used in manufacturing, be scrapped when it becomes wasteful.

Independently of any statute, it is now recognized that, when in confiscation cases it is sought to prove actual value by evidence of reproduction cost, the evidence must be directed to the present cost of installing such a plant as would be required to supply the same service. For valuation of public utilities by reproduction cost implies that 'the rates permitted should be high enough to allow a reasonable per cent. of return on the money that would now be required to construct a plant capable of rendering the desired service,' and does not mean 'that the plant should be valued at what would now be needed to duplicate the plant precisely.'  Proof of value by evidence of reproduction cost presupposes that a plant like that being valued would then be constructed. To the extent that a railroad employs instruments which are inconsistent with efficiency, the plant would not be constructed; and, because of the inefficient part, the railroad is obviously not then worth the cost of reconstructing the identical plant. While a part often has some service value, although not efficient according to the existing standard, its use may involve such heavy, unnecessary operating expense as to render it valueless for rate making purposes under section 15a. The Commission, when requested to consider evidence of reproduction cost, must therefore examine the value of every part of the plant, and that of the whole plant, as compared with the value of a modern, efficient plant. Upon such consideration the Commission may conclude that the railroad is so largely obsolete in construction and equipment as to render evidence of the reproduction cost of the identical plant of no probative force whatsoever. The duty so to deal with the evidence seems to flow necessarily from the rejection by the court of prudent investment as the measure of value, and the adoption, instead, of the actual value of the property at the time of the rate hearing as the governing rule of substantive law.

The physical deterioration of a railroad plant through wear and tear may be very small as compared with a plant new, while its functional deterioration may be very large as compared with a modern efficient plant. This lessening of service value may be due to any one of several causes. It may, in the first place, be due to causes wholly external. Freight terminals, originally well conceived and wisely located in the heart of a city, may have become valueless for rate-making purposes under section 15a, because through growth of the city the expense of operating therein has become so high, or the inescapable cost of eliminating grade crossings so large, that efficient management requires immediate abandonment of the terminals.  And, even if the cost of continuing operation there is not so high as to require abandonment, the property may have for rate-making purposes a value far below its market value.  Compare Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U.S. 257, 268, 22 S.C.t. 900 (46 L. Ed. 1151); Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U.S. 19, 52, 29 S.C.t. 192 (53 L. Ed. 382, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1134, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034).

The lessening of the service value of a part of the railroad plant may flow from changes in the volume or character of its traffic. For economy and efficiency are obviously to be determined with reference to the business of the carrier then being done and about to be done.  A station warehouse for less-than-carload freight may have become valueless for rate-making purposes, because, through motor competition, the railroad had lost substantially all its less-than-carload business at that point. Large reductions in the value of passenger stations and equipment may have resulted from decline in the passenger traffic. Branch lines may lose all their service value so that they should be abandoned because motor transportation has become more efficient. On the other hand, the traffic may have grown so much as to render inefficient a part of a line originally wisely constructed with heavy grades  or curves.  In that event economy and efficiency will demand elimination of the grades and curves and may even require the building of tunnels or a cut-off.  In so far as such a condition exists, the railroad would obviously not be reconstructed with the heavy grades and curves;  and, when considering the reconstruction cost of the whole property, that part of the line must be given merely scrap value. Compare Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. United States, 231 U.S. 423, 34 S.C.t. 125, 58 L. Ed. 296, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1,

Perhaps the most common cause of the lessening of service value of parts of railroad plants originally well conceived and still in good physical condition is the progress in the art of rail transportation. Science and invention have wrought since June 30, 1914, such extraordinary improvements in the types of automobiles and aeroplanes that no one would contend that the present service value of such machines should be ascertained by inquiring what their original cost was or what their reproduction cost would be. The progress since June 30, 1914, in the art of transportation by railroad has been less spectacular; but the art has been far from stagnant.  In railroading, as in other fields of business, the great rise in the cost of labor and of supplies, and the need of better service, have stimulated, not only inventions, but also their utilization. Through technological advances, instruments of transportation with largely increased efficiency and economy have been developed. The price of lower operating costs is the scrapping of those parts of the plant which progress in the art render obsolete.  The present greatly increased efficiency of the railroads as compared with 1920, their greatly improved credit, and their present prosperity, are, in large measure, due to the advances made toward introducing the improved instruments of rail transportation which have become available.  Obviously much remains to be done.

The extent of this technological progress may be illustrated by the modern locomotive. The development of the superheater, the mechanical stoker, the booster, and other devises, the increase in the size of the boiler, and other radical changes in size, weight, and design have resulted in the production of engines which are recognized by railway experts as having set such an entirely new standard of efficiency in fuel consumption,  in tractive power,  and in speed  as to render wasteful, under many conditions, the use of older locomotives, no matter how good their condition. Statistics as to actual performances of the locomotive of to-day, as compared with that built but a few days ago, graphically illustrate this great advance in efficiency. 

Its economies are compelling. But important changes in roadway and equipment are conditions of its effective use. Heavier locomotives make greater demands on the road structure which carry them. To obviate large maintenance expenses attendant upon frequent repair and replacement the roadway must be made more durable.  To this end rails of heavier section,  and of increased length are adopted.  Anti-creepers are freely used to prevent rail movement.  Larger ties are selected; and they are treated to prevent deterioration.  Ballast is made deeper and heavier, and of gravel or stone rather than of cinders.  Bridges are of stronger construction.  And, to facilitate the movement of traffic, watering stations  and automatic signals  of improved design are introduced. Moreover, the effective employment of the modern locomotive involves ordinarily the use of larger cars of steel construction, displacing the wooden car of small capacity with which so many of the railroads were equipped in 1914.  Engine terminals and carshops built prior to 1914 are, in many cases, inadequate  for the efficient and economical handling, housing, and repairing of the modern locomotives and cars, and must be replaced to prevent curtailment of the productive capacity of the rolling stock by needless idle hours while awaiting service or repair.  And the waste incident to the use of shop tools and machinery long since rendered obsolete by progress in the art must be stopped. 

Thus, the efficient post-war railroad plant differs widely even from the efficient one of 1914. That during the recapture period here in question the plants of most of the railroads of the United States built before the war were lacking in improved instruments of transportation made available by recent progress in the art is of common knowledge.  That this is true even to-day of many of the railroads will not be denied.  To the extent that there is inefficiency in plant, there was and is functional depreciation, lessening actual value. That this functional depreciation, arising through external changes, through competitive means of transportation, and through progress in the art of transportation, may, in respect to a particular railroad, have become so large as to more than counterbalance that increase in its actual value which would otherwise flow from the rise in the price level since 1914, seems clear.

It may be urged that the continued use of the inefficient plant,  and the repairing rather than replacement of its antiquated parts,  has been due to lack of capital and insufficient revenues.  Such an excuse for failing to install the improved plant might have been conclusive if prudent investment had been accepted as the measure of value. But the fact that the management may have been wholly free from blame in continuing to use the inefficient parts obviously does not add to their actual value. The actual value of an existing plant, and the difference between its value and the present cost of constructing a modern efficient plant which will render the service, is precisely the same whether the continued use of the obsolete part was due to lack of capital, or to lack of good judgment, or to somnolence on the part of the management. As was said in Board of Commissioners v. New York Telephone Co., 271 U.S. 23, 32, 46 S.C.t. 363, 366 (70 L. Ed. 808): 'Customers pay for service, not for the property used to render it.' Only the then service value of the property is of legal significance under the rule of Smyth v. Ames.

It may also be urged that such functional depreciation of the railroad plant since 1914 is allowed for in the depreciation customarily estimated by the Commission. But this is not true. Functional depreciation prior to June 30, 1914, was included when valuing as of that date the then property of the railroads. But the instructions of the Commission provided that functional depreciation arising after that date should not be considered unless 'imminent.' And the Commission made clear that it did not intend by the term to include functional depreciation of the character described above arising from external causes, from the competition of new methods of transportation, from the extraordinary urban growth, from the need of new economies arising from the largely increased labor and fuel costs, and from other incidents of the war and post-war developments in industry and transportation. Texas Midland R. R., 75 I. C. C. 1, 47-52, 124-130. Compare, Depreciation Charges on Steam Railroads, 118 I. C. C. 295. 

If weight is to be given to reproduction cost in making the valuation of any railroad for rate-making purposes under section 19a and section 15a, there must be a determination of the functional depreciation of the individual plant as compared with a modern, efficient plant adequate to perform the same service. To make such a determination for any railroad involves a detailed inquiry into the character and condition of all those parts of the plant which may have reduced functional value because of the post-war changes affecting transportation above referred to, and also into the character and the volume of the carrier's business. For the efficient plant means that plant which is economical and efficient for the particular carrier in view of the peculiar requirements and possibilities of its own business. To make such a determination justly, the Commission must have the data on which a competent and vigilant management would insist when required to pass upon the advisability of making capital expenditures. And the Commission would be obliged to give them the same careful consideration. The determination of the extent of functional depreciation is thus a very serious task-a task far more serious than that of determining merely physical depreciation.

To make such a determination of functional depreciation annually for each of the railroads of the United States would be a stupendous task, involving perhaps prohibitive expense. To make the necessary decisions promptly would seem impossible, among other reasons, because railroad valuation is but a small part of the many duties of the Commission. On the other hand, to adjust rates so as to render a fair return, and to provide through the recapture provision funds in aid of the weaker railroad, are tasks which Congress deemed urgent; and which must be promptly performed if its purpose is to be achieved. Obviously Congress intended that in making the necessary valuations under section 15a a method should be pursued by which the task which it imposed upon the Commission could be performed. Compare New England Divisions Case, 261 U.S. 184, 197, 43 S.C.t. 270, 67 L. Ed. 605. Recognizing this, the Commission construed section 15a as it had paragraph (f) of section 19a; that is, as permitting the Commission to make a basic valuation as of some general date (June 30, 1914, was selected), and, unless good reason to the contrary appeared, to find the value for any year thereafter by adding to or substracting from the 1914 value the net increases or decreases in the investment in property devoted to transportation service as determined from the carrier's annual returns with due regard to the element of depreciation. 

Eighth. The significance, in connection with current reproduction costs, of the requirement in section 15a that value be ascertained 'for rate-making purposes' as there defined becomes apparent when the position of railroads, in this respect, is compared with that of most local utilities enjoying a monopoly of a necessary of life. The fundamental question in the Southwestern Bell Case was one of substantive constitutional law, namely: Is the rate base on which the Constitution guarantees to a public utility the right to earn a fair return the actual value of the property at the time of the rate hearing, or is it the cost or capital prudently invested in the enterprise? The court decided that the rate base is the actual value at the time of the rate hearing. That proposition of substantive law the Commission undertook to apply to the facts presented in the case at bar. Recognizing that evidence of increased reconstruction costs is admissible for the purpose of showing an actual value greater than the original cost or the prudent investment, it found in respect to some of the carrier's property that the evidence of enhanced reconstruction cost was persuasive of higher present value. As to the rest of the property, it held that the evidence was neither adequate nor persuasive.

Of both railroads and the local utility it is true, under the rule of substantive law adopted in the Southwestern Bell Case, that value is the sum on which a fair return can be earned consistently with the laws of trade and legal enactments. But the operative scope upon railroads of the limitations so imposed upon the rates, and hence upon values, is much greater than in the case of local utilities.  Rail rates are being constantly curbed by the competition of markets and of rival means of transportation. Rail rates are curbed also by the influence of high rates upon the desires of individuals. The public can, to a considerable extent, do without rail service. If the rates are excessive, traffic falls off. Thus when passenger rates are too high, travel is either curtailed or people employ other means of transportation. But the service rendered by a local water company in a populous city is practically indispensable to every inhabitant. There can be no substitute for water, and to escape taking the service is practically impossible; for an alternative means of supply is rarely available. Even the common business incentive of establishing low prices in order to induce an enlarged volume of sales is absent, since the volume of the business done by a water company will not be appreciably affected by a raising or lowering of the rates, except in so far as water in quantity is used for manufacturing purposes. In other words, the commercial limitation upon rates-what the traffic will bear-is to a large extent absent in the case of such a local monopoly. The city water user must submit to such rates as the utility chooses to impose, unless they are curbed by legislative enactment.

The legal limitations upon rates (so potent in the case of railroads) are, in the main, inoperative in the case of such a water company. Rail rates are sometimes held illegal because the exaction is greater than the value of the service to the shipper. There is in fact no corresponding limitation upon water rates. The charge is so small, as compared with the inconvenience which would be suffered in doing without the service, that the worth to the water taker could rarely be doubted. The prohibition of discrimination against persons, places, or articles of commerce which so frequently interferes to prevent railroads from charging higher rates, although the traffic would easily bear them, affords no protection to city water users, and seldom causes a loss of revenue to the water company. There is in respect to the water rates no prohibition comparable to that embodied in the long and short haul clause, which has an important effect in limiting rail rates. Hence, under the rule of substantive law declared in the Southwestern Bell Case, practically the only limitation imposed upon water rates is the denial to the utility of rates which will yield an excessive return upon the actual value of the property. In applying that rule of substantive law, the then actual cost of reproducing the plant would (assuming it to be efficient) commonly be persuasive evidence of its actual value, as the current cost of reproducing the vessel was held to be in Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 268 U.S. 146, 156, 45 S.C.t. 465, 69 L. Ed. 890.

It is true that, in the Southwestern Bell Case, the court passed also upon a subsidiary question-the weight and effect of the evidence of reconstruction cost. But the question of adjective law arose upon a record very different from that in the case at bar; and the action of the Commission here is entirely consistent with that decision. In the Southwestern Bell Case direct testimony as to the then value of the property was introduced. The efficiency of the plant was unquestioned. Witnesses had testified both to the actual cost of constructing identical property at that time, and that the specific property under consideration was worth at least 25 per cent. more than the estimate of the state commission. The court believed those witnesses. Concluding that this direct and uncontradicted evidence had been ignored by the state commission be cause of error as to the governing rule of substantive law, this court set aside the rate order as confiscatory, saying: 'We think the proof shows that for the purposes of the present case, the valuation should be at least $25,000,000.' 262 U.S. 276, 288, 43 S.C.t. 544, 546 (67 L. Ed. 981, 31 A. L. R. 807).

The action of the Commission in the case at bar was consistent also with McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Co., 272 U.S. 400, 47 S.C.t. 144, 71 L. Ed. 316, and Bluefield Water Works Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 679, 43 S.C.t. 675, 67 L. Ed. 1176. Each of these water companies enjoyed a local monopoly of an indispensable service. In order to provide a substitute, the community would have either to take the utility's property by eminent domain; or, if it was free to do so, build a competing plant. There was practically no commercial limitation upon the earning power of these water companies except the extent of the local market, and practically no legal limitation except the requirement that the rates charged should not be so high as to yield an excessive return upon the actual value of the utility's property. The current cost of constructing, then, a plant substantially like the utility's (assuming it to be efficient) would be persuasive evidence of its actual value. For upon that issue, concerning a local water monopoly, the inquiry would naturally be: How much would it cost the community to substitute for the private monopoly a publicly owned plant? But evidence of the cost of reconstructing a railroad built before 1914 might, for the reasons stated above, be no indication whatever of its postwar value for rate-making purposes under section 15a. And where, as in the case at bar, the probative force of the evidence may be considered free from any question of confiscation, the rule declared in Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon, 253 U.S. 287, 40 S.C.t. 527, 64 L. Ed. 908, which requires in confiscation cases a judicial determination on the weight of the evidence, does not apply.

Ninth. A further question of construction requires consideration. It is suggested that, even if the Commission is not required to give effect to the higher price level when finding values for rate-making purposes under section 15a, it must do so when fixing the amount of the excess income to be recaptured from a particular railroad under paragraphs 6 to 18. The language of the section affords a short answer to that contention. The valuation prescribed in paragraph 4 is declared to be 'for the purposes of this section'-that is, for recapture purposes as well as for rate making. And paragraph 6, which provides for the recapture. declares: 'The value of such railway property shall be determined by the Commission in the manner provided in paragraph (4).'

The recapture of excess earnings and the establishment of reserves are a part of the process of establishing such rates 'that carriers as a whole (or as a whole in each of such rate groups or territories as the Commission may from time to time designate) will, under honest, efficient and economical management, * * * earn an aggregate annual net railway operating income equal, as nearly as may be, to a fair return upon the aggregate value of the railway property of such carriers held for and used in the service of transportation.' Paragraph 2.

The recapture and reserve are the readjustment made necessary-'inasmuch as it is impossible (without regulation and control in the interest of the commerce of the United States considered as a whole) to establish uniform rates upon competitive traffic which will adequately sustain all the carriers which are engaged in such traffic and which are indispensable to the communities to which they render the service of transportation, without enabling some of such carriers to receive a net railway operating income substantially and unreasonably in excess of a fair return upon the value of their railway property held for and used in the service of transportation, it is hereby declared that any carrier which receives such an income so in excess of a fair return, shall hold such part of the excess, as hereinafter prescribed, as trustee for, and shall pay it to, the United States.' Paragraph 5.

Thus, the direction in the order here challenged to pay or reserve the excess over 6 per cent. of the amounts earned from 1920 to 1923 by rates established pursuant to Ex parte 74, Increased Rates, 1920, 58 I. C. C. 220, is merely a readjustment of those rates.

Tenth. The question remains whether the Commission, in valuing the structural property acquired before June 30, 1914, abused its discretion by declining to give effect to the evidence of enhanced reconstruction cost.  The O'Fallon insists that the Commission, in fact, adopted a mathematical formula; that it declined to determine the present value of the carrier's property in accordance with 'the flexible and rational rule of Smyth v. Ames, under which value is a matter of judgment to be determined by a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances'; that it erected 'an arbitrary standard of its own based on no relevant facts'; that, if it had given consideration to all relevant facts and circumstances, including as one its cost of reproduction at current prices, 'the value found must have been substantially higher'; and that its primary purpose was to determine the amount of the investment in the carriers' property. In short, the O'Fallon asserts that the Commission refused to find actual value, and, instead, found the prudent investment.

In support of this assertion, the O'Fallon points to the statement in the report that 'the value of the property of railroads for rate-making purposes * * * approaches more nearly the reasonable and necessary investment in the property than the cost of reproducing it at a particular time.' Page 41. The statement just quoted does not mean that the Commission accepted prudent investment as a measure of value. It means merely that the Commission deemed the estimated original cost a better indication of actual value than the estimated reconstruction cost. While this court declared in the Southwestern Bell Case that prudent investment is not to be taken as the measure of value, it has never held that prudent investment may not be accepted as evidence of value, or that a finding of value is necessarily erroneous if it happens to be more nearly coincident with what may be supposed to have been the cost of the property than with its estimated reproduction cost. The single-sum values found by the Commission do not coincide either with the estimated prudent investment or with the estimated reconstruction cost. They are much nearer the estimated original cost of the property than they are to its estimated reproduction cost. But the values found do not conform to any formula. 

The general method pursued by the Commission in reaching its conclusion closely resembles that approved by the Court in Georgia Ry. & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission, 262 U.S. 625, 629, 630, 43 S.C.t. 680, 67 L. Ed. 1144. It appeared that the O'Fallon Railroad had been constructed long prior to June 30, 1914. The Commission had before it 'the cost of reproduction new of the structural portion of this property estimated on the basis of our 1914 unit prices, coupled with the knowledge that costs of reproduction so arrived at were not greatly different from the original costs.' As bearing upon the value of those parts of the railroad's property which were added or replaced later, the Commission had the actual cost. As bearing on the then value of the railroad land, it had current values of adjacent lands. It had evidence concerning the railroad and the character and volume of its traffic, the working capital, revenues, and expenses. It had evidence of increased price levels after 1914 and estimates of current reproduction costs during the recapture periods.

The carrier insisted that physically the property had appreciated more than it had depreciated, and urged the Commission to take as the basic measure of value the 'cost of reproduction new at current prices to the exclusion of everything else, or at least of everything that might tend to a lower value.' 124 I. C. C. 28. This the Commission declined to do. It gave full effect to increased current market values in determining the value of the land. It gave to the additions and betterments made after June 30, 1914, a value approximating their cost less physical depreciation.  But, in respect to structural property and equipment acquired before June 30, 1914, it declined to give weight to the evidence introduced to show current reproduction costs greater than those of 1914. It concluded, despite the estimates of higher reconstruction costs, that, except for the additions, the actual value of this part of the O'Fallon Railroad had not increased; and it found the single sum value for rate-making purposes in 1920 to be $856,065; in 1921, $875,360; in 1922, $978,874; in 1923, $978,246.

The Commission recognized, as stated in Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352, 434, 33 S.C.t. 729, 754 (57 L. Ed. 1511, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18), that the determination of value is 'not a matter of formulas, but there must be a reasonable judgment having its basis in a proper consideration of all relevant facts.' Georgia Ry. & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission, 262 U.S. 625, 630, 43 S.C.t. 680, 67 L. Ed. 1144. It states that 'it considered and weighed carefully, in the light of its own knowledge and experience, each fact, circumstance and condition called to its attention on behalf of the carrier' as well as the evidence otherwise introduced; and that 'from this accumulation of information we have formed our judgments as to the fair basic single-sum values, not by the use of any formula but after consideration of all relevant facts.' The report makes clear that its finding was the result of an exercise of judgment upon all the evidence; that the Commission accorded to the evidence of reconstruction cost all the probative force to which it deemed that evidence entitled on the issue of actual value; and that it considered, as bearing upon value, not only the probable cost and the estimated reproduction cost, but also 'descriptions of the carrier, of its traffic, of the territory in which it operates, its history, and summaries of the results of its operation.' Page 25.

The difficulties by which the Commission was confronted when requested to apply the evidence of reproduction cost can hardly be exaggerated. In the first place, the evidence was of such a character that it did not satisfactorily establish what would have been the current cost of reproduction during the recapture periods.  During the years here in question there was practically no construction of new lines.  Thus, the current cost of reproduction for those years had to be obtained by using index figures as the basis for a guess as to what it would cost to build then the identical railroad. To give to such figures effect as proving what it would then have cost to reproduce the O'Fallon Railroad, it must be assumed that there had not been introduced since June 30, 1914, new cost-saving methods of construction which would overcome, in whole or in part, the effect of the higher price level upon the cost of reproducing the identical property. This, in view of its experience, the Commission properly declined to do.  In the second place, there was a lack of evidence to show to what extent, if any, higher reconstruction cost, in the several recapture periods, implied a value higher than that theretofore prevailing.  The Commission believed that it could act only on proof; that it was not required or permitted to base findings on conjecture; and that to assign. under the circumstances, any weight to the evidence of reconstruction cost would be mere conjecture.

Moreover, the Commission had, through its valuation department, special knowledge of the property of this carrier. It had acquired necessarily in the performance of its many duties the general knowledge, already referred to, concerning changes in transportation conditions and of the advances in the art; and it knew how great was their effect upon the actual values of railroad property. The value of the O'Fallon Railway not having been finally ascertained under section 19a, it was obliged by paragraph 4 to utilize 'the results of its investigation under section 19a of this act in so far as deemed by it available.' The evidence introduced in the recapture proceedings showed, among other things, that of the five locomotives in the O'Fallon's service December 31, 1920, one had been built as early as 1874, and that their average age was 20.8 years; also that the aggregate outlays for additions and betterments in the railroad, less small retirements, had in eleven years been only $98,148.25. The O'Fallon did not introduce any evidence bearing upon functional depreciation of the property. The Commission may reasonably have concluded that, even if there had been introduced persuasive evidence that the cost, during the recapture periods, of reproducing new the identical plant approximated the rise in the general price level, still the actual value of the O'Fallon Railway, as it existed June 30, 1914, had not increased, because the functional depreciation plus the physical depreciation since that date counterbalanced fully what otherwise might have been the higher value of the plant.

The O'Fallon urged that its large net earnings during the recapture periods and earlier fully established a higher value, independently of the evidence of reproduction cost. This contention ignores the peculiar character of the property. The railroad, which is owned by the Adolphus Busch estate and family and lies wholly in Illinois, operates about 9 miles of main line from two coal mines also owned by the Busch estate and family, to the tracks of the Terminal Company in East St. Louis. There are 12 miles of yardage tracks, located largely at the Busch mines. While the railroad is legally a common carrier, it is actually an industrial railroad. Ninety-nine per cent. of its revenues are derived directly from the carriage of coal; and, of the remaining 1 per cent., about half appears to come from a payment of $300 a month made by the Busch Coal Company for carrying its miners to and from its mines. Besides the coal from the Busch mines, there is a substantial but diminishing amount carried under a long-time contract from two mines located on an electric road, the East St. Louis & Suburban Railway, which crosses the O'Fallon. This coal it carries from the junction to East St. Louis. See St. Louis & O'Fallon Ry. Co. v. East St. Louis & Suburban Ry. Co., 81 I. C. C. 538. Obviously the value of this railroad property is wholly dependent upon the operation of the mines.

How long the four mines will continue to be operated was and still is entirely uncertain. Their product is subject to the competition of 221 other bituminous coal mines in Illinois. These, which are all located on other railroads, enjoy low rates to St. Louis. See Perry Coal Co. v. Alton & Southern R. R., 5 Illinois Commerce Commission, 461. The vicissitudes of coal mining, the diminishing use of coal since the war because of increased fuel efficiency, the competition of oil as fuel, and the growing use of hydroelectric power are matters of common knowledge, as are the diminishing operations during recent years of the Illinois coal mines as compared with the mines in nonunion territory.  Moreover, the decline in the volume of traffic, the reduction in coal rates made by Reduced Rates, 1922, 68 I. C. C. 676, and the growing expenses of the carrier due to increased pay roll, were put in evidence by it. In view of these facts, the Commission was clearly justified in refusing to find that the railroad had a higher value than in 1914, although the net earning as reported showed a return for the earlier period averaging 7 1/2 per cent. upon the amount claimed as reproduction cost.

This court has no concern with the correctness of the Commission's reasoning on the evidence in making its findings of fact, since it applied the rules of substantive law prescribed by Congress and reached its findings of actual value by the exercise of its judgment upon all the evidence, including enhanced construction costs. Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 665, 666, 47 S.C.t. 222, 71 L. Ed. 463; Assigned Car Cases, 274 U.S. 564, 580, 47 S.C.t. 727, 71 L. Ed. 1204. We must bear in mind that here we are not dealing with a question of confiscation; that we are dealing, as was pointed out in Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 527, 18 S.C.t. 418, 426 (42 L. Ed. 819), with a legislative question which can 'be more easily determined by a commission composed of persons whose special skill, observation and experience qualifies them to so handle great problems of transportation as to do justice both to the public and to those whose money has been used to construct and maintain highways for the convenience and benefit of the people.'

Mr. Justice HOLMES and Mr. Justice STONE join in this opinion.

Mr. Justice STONE (dissenting).

I agree with what Mr. Justice BRANDEIS has said, and add a word only by way of emphasis of those aspects of the case which appear to me sufficient, apart from all other considerations, to sustain the finding of the Commission.

The report of the Interstate Commerce Commission is rejected and its order set aside on the sole ground that, in a recapture proceeding under section 15a of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 USCA § 15a), it has failed to consider present reproduction cost or value of appellant's property and so to 'give due consideration to all the elements of value recognized by the law of the land for rate making purposes.' No constitutional question is involved.

The Commission was called upon to value a railroad, with less than 9 miles of main line track, which had been constructed prior to 1900. Much of its equipment was purchased before 1908; a considerable part being secondhand. Its traffic was very largely dependent on the output of a few coal mines which it served.

In performing its task, the Commission had before it the cost of reproduction new of appellant's structural property, estimated on the basis of 1914 unit prices, 'with the knowledge that the costs of reproduction so arrived at were not greatly different from the original costs.' It had evidence of the actual cost of later additions and replacements, of the physical condition of the railroad and equipment, of the character, volume, and sources of its traffic, of its working capital and revenues and expenses. It possessed, through its valuation department, special knowledge of the property of this carrier. Through its own experience it had the benefit of an expert knowledge of all the factors affecting value of railway property growing out of changes in methods of transportation, of improvement in transportation appliances, and the consequent obsolescence of existing equipment, of improvement in methods of railroad construction and consequent reductions in cost. Although it had estimates of present construction costs in the form of index figures based on the comparative general price levels of labor and materials for 1914 and each of the recapture years, which it considered and discussed in its report, there was no evidence before it of the actual present cost of construction of this or any other railroad or any affirmative showing that, if appellant's road was to be built and equipped anew, competent railroad engineers would deem the present structure and equipment suitable for or adaptable to the economical and efficient management contemplated by the statute.

After stating that it had before it the evidence above outlined, including that of reproduction cost, and such other matters as the carrier desired to bring to its attention, the Commission added, 'From this accumulated information we have formed our judgment as to the fair basic single sum values, not by the use of any formula, but after consideration of all relevant facts.' That the Commission gave consideration to present reproduction costs appears not only from its own statement, but from the fact that it gave full effect to increased current market values in determining the value of land and to additions and betterments since June 30, 1914, taken at their cost less depreciation. In the light of those considerations which affect the present value of appellant's structural property which Mr. Justice BRANDEIS has mentioned, I cannot say that the Commission did not have before it the requisite data for forming a trustworthy judgment of the value of appellant's road or that it failed to give to proof of reproduction cost all the weight to which it was entitled on its merits. Had the Commission not turned aside to point out in its report the economic fallacies of the use of reproduction cost as a standard of value for rate-making purposes, which it nevertheless considered and to some extent applied, I suppose it would not have occurred to any one to question the validity of its order.

I cannot avoid the conclusion that, in substance, the objection, now upheld, to the order of the Commission, is not that it failed to consider or give appropriate weight to evidence of present reproduction cost of appellant's road, but that it attached less weight to present construction costs than to other factors before it affecting adversely the present value of the structural property. That this was the real nature of the objection voiced by the dissenting Commissioners seems to me apparent from their opinion. They seem to assume that, as a result of Southwestern Tel. Co. v. Public Service Comm., 262 U.S. 276, 43 S.C.t. 544, 67 L. Ed. 981, 31 A. L. R. 807, and other cases in this court, the Commission as a matter of law may never, under any circumstances, find that the value of the structural part of a railroad does not exceed its fair value of an earlier date, if the Commission has before it evidence of later increased construction costs. They say, 'under the law of the land,' in valuing a railroad under section 15a 'we must accord weight in the legal sense to the greatly enhanced cost of material, labor and supplies' during the recapture periods. Weight in the legal sense is evidently taken to be not that accorded by an informed judgment but imposed by some positive rule of law.

Without discussion of the evidence and other data which received the consideration of the Commission, the opinion of this court seems to proceed on the broad assumption that the evidence relied on, mere synthetic estimates of costs of reproduction, must so certainly and necessarily outweigh all other considerations affecting values as to require the order of the Commission to be set aside. In effect the Commission is required to give to such index figures an evidential value to which it points out they are not entitled when applied to railroad properties in general or to this one in particular, and this, so far as appears, without investigation of the soundness of the reasons of the Commission for rejecting them.

This court has said that present reproduction costs must be considered in ascertaining value for rate-making purposes. But it has not said that such evidence, when fairly considered, may not be outweighed by other considerations affecting value, or that any evidence of present reproduction costs, when compared with all the other factors affecting value, must be given a weight to which it is not entitled in the judgment of the tribunal 'informed by experience' and 'appointed by law' to deal with the very problem now presented. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 206 U.S. 441, 454, 27 S.C.t. 700, 51 L. Ed. 1128. But, if 'weight in the legal sense' must be given to evidence of present construction costs, by the judgment now given we do not lay down any legal rule which will inform the Commission how much weight, short of its full effect, to the exclusion of all other considerations, is to be given to the evidence of synthetic costs of construction in valuing a railroad property. If full effect were to be given to it in all cases, then, as the Commission points out in its report, the railroads of the country, valued by the Commission in 1920 at nineteen billion dollars, would have had in that year a reproduction value of forty billion dollars, and we would arrive at the economic paradox that the value of the railroads may be far in excess of any amount on which they could earn a return. If less than full effect may be given, it is difficult for me to see how, without departure from established principles, the Commission could be asked to do more than it has already done-to weigh the evidence guided by all the proper considerations-or how, if there is evidence upon which its findings may rest, we can substitute our judgment for that of the Commission. Such, I believe, is the 'due consideration' which the statute requires of 'all the elements of value recognized by the law of the land for ratemaking purposes.'

As I cannot say a priori that increased construction costs may not be more than offset by other elements affecting adversely the present value of appellant's property, and as there was evidence before the Commission to support its findings, I can only conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed. In any case, in view of the statement of the Commission that it considered all relevant facts, including the elements of value brought to its attention by the carrier, I should not have supposed that we could rightly set aside the present order without some consideration of the probative value of the evidence of present reproduction costs which the Commission discussed at length in its report.

Mr. Justice HOLMES and Mr. Justice BRANDEIS concur in this opinion. 

Notes