Chapter IV: Front Matter (4)

═══════════════════════════╤═════════╤═══════════╤═══════════╤═════════ Location. │ Size of │ Michigan │ Pere │ Actual │ lots. │ Central │ Marquette │transfer. │ │appraisal. │appraisal. │ ───────────────────────────┼─────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────── │ ft. deep│per sq. ft.│per sq. ft.│ Fulton to Island Street │50 by 100│ │ $2.00│ $1.40 Island to Oakes Street │50 by 100│ │ 2.00│ 1.22 Oakes to Cherry Street │ │ │ 2.00│ 1.33 Cherry Street Frontage │130 deep │ $1.23│ 1.23│ Cherry to Williams Street │50 by 130│ │ │ 1.55 Williams Street Frontage │130 deep │ 0.92│ 0.54│ Williams to Bartlett Street│ │ │ │ 0.76 Bartlett Street Frontage │130 deep │ 0.77│ 0.46│ Bartlett to Goodrich Street│ │ │ │ 0.625 Goodrich Street Frontage │130 deep │ 0.62│ 0.38│ Goodrich Street to │ │ │ │ 0.395 Wealthy Avenue │ │ │ │ Prescott to First Street │ │ 0.25│ │ 0.54 First to Second Street │ │ 0.25│ │ 0.16 │ │ per acre.│ per acre.│ Land on Hall Street │ │ 1,500│ 1,359│ 3.75 North side of Hall Street │ │ │ 1,000│per acre. Hall to Stevens Street │ │ 1,500│ 800│ 1,351.11 On Crofton Street │ │ 400│ │ 400.00 ═══════════════════════════╧═════════╧═══════════╧═══════════╧═════════

The problem of an appraiser is to determine, with the best evidence at hand, what land is fairly worth for railroad purposes at the time of appraisal. He must take into account the railway-purpose increment, if he is consistent in his appraisal.

Non-Physical Values.

The foregoing narrative account of the general field and office handling of the Michigan appraisal of physical property, while not touching on matters of principle of valuation, except as to land values, is submitted as describing briefly the machinery of the appraisal. A number of very important issues were raised which have to do with the theory of valuation. These are worthy of discussion at length, in the subsequent consideration of the method of determination of a fair value, but are not here referred to. Within any short limits it is impossible to give a comprehensive description in detail of all the work of the Michigan appraisal. Several articles descriptive of this work have been written, giving quite full extracts from the various sets of rules which were promulgated, and describing some phases of the work in much more detail than is here attempted.

The physical valuation, as represented by two figures—the cost of reproduction of the physical property, and its present value—was submitted to the Board of State Tax Commissioners as the work of Professor Cooley, and in most of the literature descriptive of it, it has been termed the "Cooley Appraisal."

After the completion of Professor Cooley's work, his figures were submitted to Professor Henry C. Adams, who had been making a study of the income accounts of the various companies, and to whom had been assigned the duty of determining the non-physical or franchise values of the properties.

Professor Adams has described[5] very fully the plan adopted for this work, and this plan has been commented on so fully that any lengthy description is deemed unnecessary. It appears to be perfectly proper, however, to correct certain misstatements regarding this work.

When it was first determined to make the appraisal, Professor Cooley—not Professor Adams—was requested to take charge. The assignment to Professor Adams of the non-physical valuation was made after the physical valuation was well under way.

The use of a negative or subtractive non-physical value was considered, and advised by Professor Adams. The work was not undertaken with a view of "increasing the assessments," but to put the Tax Commission in possession of a figure which would represent the business value of the property as well as the physical value.

Professor Adams held that the non-physical element of value was not a simple commercial element, but included:

{to be a corporation,
The franchise {to use public property,

The possession of traffic not exposed to competition,

The possession of traffic through connections,

The benefit of economies due to density of traffic,

The value due to organization and vitality of industries served.

He also held that, as nothing visible or tangible gave support to this value, it must be determined on the basis of information secured from the income accounts of the company.

Without going into any complete description of Professor Adams' method, it may be said that he made an analysis of the income accounts, and, after providing for operating expenses and taxes, he deducted, as an annuity properly chargeable to capital, a certain percentage of the appraised value of the physical properties. Any remainder was capitalized to give the true value of the immaterial element, or the business value.

In the rates of capitalization and annuity used in 1902, there were certain changes, making them differ from those used in 1900, and certain changes in the detail of analysis of income accounts and methods of determining the rates of interest which are entirely immaterial to the present narrative. The work was of great importance as being the first exposition of this method of obtaining non-physical values. It was a fair, logical, and business-like attempt to determine those elements which give a well-designed, economically-built, or advantageously-located property a greater value as a money-earning concern than the actual capital invested, or than the actual value remaining in its physical property.

It will be seen that, in the case of a property in which the surplus earnings depend on excessive rates for service, it will fail as a method of determining a value for use as a basis of rate-making; and it fails, in the form in which it was used in 1900 and 1902, to bring out those negative or subtractive elements which may be determined from the income accounts, in the case of properties which do not earn a fair return on the investment. This, however, was due to the fact that the taxation laws of Michigan made no provision for any reduction of value because property was idle or non-productive, and any such deduction in the case of corporation property would place it on a different basis from other property. Professor Adams and his associates, therefore, applied only positive values, where any such were found, although advocating the use of negative values.

The writer has seen no criticism of Professor Adams' work which is not apparently incited by, either the direct interest of corporations in lowering valuations for taxation, or by an effort to confuse the subject of valuation so as to discredit the work in the eyes of taxing authorities. Any person competent to discuss the matter, who has given Professor Adams' method careful thought, will be forced to the conclusion that this was a long step in the direction of the final solution of these important and perplexing elements of value.

History and Results of the Michigan Appraisal.

Based on the valuation of 1900, the Board of State Tax Commissioners was enabled to comply with the statute in reporting to the Legislature. New laws were passed, sundry suits were brought, and, finally, the case of the Michigan Central Railroad _vs._ Perry F. Powers, Auditor-General, and a number of other cases in behalf of other roads, were brought to trial before the United States Court for the Western District of Michigan.

This Michigan Central case was a suit to restrain the collection of taxes based on the new assessment, the railroads claiming that their property was assessed at full value, while general properties of the State were assessed at a considerably lower percentage than full value. This suit was essentially a valuation of the railroad properties as of April, 1902. This work was done along the same line as the former valuation, by a portion of the same staff. The old work was brought down to date, and certain special studies were made, which resulted in a change of right-of-way valuation, as has been related.

In the trial of the case of Michigan Central Railroad _vs._ Powers, the two valuations were fully testified to by all the men engaged, and the record relative to the appraisal fills several volumes.

Subsequently, in 1906, Professor Cooley was engaged by the Attorney-General, and, re-assembling the staff, brought the work down to date as of April, 1906.

There has been no permanent force engaged on the work in Michigan, and the re-appraisals have only been made as actual necessity demanded.

_Market Value of Stocks and Bonds._—During the progress of the appraisal of 1900 an independent force of men was engaged in studying the market values of stocks and bonds of Michigan roads with a view to securing information on every possible line that would aid the appraiser in reaching proper conclusions, or enable him to check his figures. These figures were used only as a check, and no report of the details of this work was submitted.

_Error in Published Reports as to Michigan Work._—In several articles descriptive of the Michigan work, one quite serious misstatement of fact has inadvertently been made. The writer is not quite sure how or where the wrong impression originated, but it has been noted in several articles and editorials.

Substantially, all accounts are similar to that of Professor Taylor,[6] which is:

"In looking over the notes and results of the work done in Michigan, it was noticed that Mr. Cooley's engineers, car-men and other experts went over the property of each railway company and enumerated and valued the same, and then the railway company generally had its own men perform the same work in order to check up the appraisal made by the State authorities. Thus, this expensive work was unnecessarily duplicated."

Undoubtedly this statement was made in good faith, and has gained currency by not having been corrected, but it is not the fact.

The Chicago and Northwestern Railway took immediate steps to make surveys and secure data, as has been described, and made a complete appraisal, using the Michigan forms. The result of this appraisal was:

Chicago and Northwestern, present value $8,551,530
State appraisal, present value 8,281,090

In this case the railroad had no records, and the work was of value to them, not only as a check on the work of the State, but also as giving them complete records of permanent way. It was not done independently of, and after, the State work, but was organized so that the field work of both railroad company and State was done at the same time.

No other complete work of valuation was done by the railroad companies. During the trial of the cases, no contrary or different valuations were set up. No special attack was made on the work, except to select here and there some specific example of a building which was appraised at a higher figure than cost, perhaps half a dozen in all, and to introduce expert evidence, particularly on land and right-of-way values. Aside from the money expended on the litigation, there were no expenditures by the roads in checking up the work. On the contrary, a number of managers, at their own expense, had typewritten copies of the final report as to their own lines made, in order to file in their records.

It is a fact that only one of the seventy-eight roads made a complete appraisal, covering 387.8 miles of main line, and none of the other roads or mileage went to any considerable expense.

_The Cost of the Work._—No complete statement of the total cost of the work of valuation in Michigan has ever been issued as a public document. The cost of the work, including salaries of appraiser, engineers, assistants, clerks, all expenses of the Board of Review, all expenses connected with Professor Adams' non-physical appraisal, also all office rent, stationery, supplies, telegraph, telephone, and railroad expenses, printing and binding—in short every dollar chargeable to the Michigan railroad appraisal of 1900—footed up to $70,604.21.

The exact mileage of roads in the State was:

Main track 7,082.35 miles.
Second track 164.83 "
Branches 730.92 "
Spurs and sidings 2,904.70 "
_________ ______
Total 10,882.80 miles.
Average cost per main-line mile $9.97
" " " total-track " 6.50

The exact figures of cost of the subsequent work of appraisal, or the costs of the litigation, are not available to the writer. In a general way, it may be said that the cost to the State of the railroad tax cases was not far from $75,000, and that the expenses of the second and third appraisals were less than $50,000, so that, to date, the entire cost to the State of Michigan is less than $200,000 for the three appraisals and the litigation growing out of them.

Some information as to details of costs may not be out of place. All employees were paid a salary and required to provide their own subsistence. Salaries ranged from $250 to $500 per month for experienced men, from $125 to $250 for men with only a few years of experience, and from $75 to $125 for assistants and clerks.

All traveling expenses (except hotel and subsistence) were paid, the State issuing mileage books to all employees, and receiving a complete check on the movements of every man through the mileage bureau. The telegraph and long-distance telephone were used almost exclusively in communication between the office and the men in the field, all bills being paid by the State. All expenses of inspection by hand-car, velocipede-car, etc., were paid by the State, except as the roadmasters made trips with the inspectors.

The unvarying policy of the appraiser was to reimburse the companies for all extra expenses incurred on account of the work, and to accept no transportation or favors from any company.

TABLE 7.—GRAND SUMMARY OF RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1900 AS TO
SEVENTY-EIGHT INCORPORATED RAILROADS.

PHYSICAL APPRAISAL.

════╤══════════════════════════════════════╤═════════════╤═════════════
Item│ Subject. │ Cost of │ Present
No. │ │reproduction.│ value.
────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────
1│Engineering, 4% on items 2 to 25, │ $5,386,772│ $5,386,772
│ inclusive, and on item 33 │ │
2│Right of way and station grounds │ 27,745,313│ 27,745,313
3│Real estate │ 863,337│ 863,337
4│Grading │ 21,699,995│ 21,693,024
5│Tunnels │ 1,148,070│ 1,093,445
6│Bridges, trestles, and culverts │ 8,027,119│ 6,337,819
7│Ties (cross- and switch-ties) │ 11,139,924│ 6,148,748
8│Rails │ 28,703,012│ 21,865,994
9│Track fastenings │ 3,845,030│ 2,987,982
10│Frogs, switches, and crossings │ 1,469,781│ 1,040,120
11│Ballast │ 3,723,558│ 3,723,558
12│Track laying and surfacing │ 6,555,638│ 6,400,972
13│Fencing │ 2,763,595│ 1,627,790
14│Crossings, cattle guards, and signs │ 607,542│ 428,474
15│Interlocking and signal apparatus │ 501,883│ 448,686
16│Telegraph (30) telephones │ 258,985│ 134,797
17│Station buildings and fixtures │ 4,108,736│ 3,111,103
18│Shops, round-houses, and turn-tables │ 2,157,228│ 1,467,569
19│Shop machinery and tools │ 1,107,910│ 882,634
20│Water stations │ 725,670│ 522,135
21│Fuel stations │ 303,289│ 201,461
22│Grain elevators │ 1,336,794│ 1,609,043
23│Warehouses │ 258,646│ 183,910
24│Docks and wharfs │ 5,531,919│ 3,831,934
25│Miscellaneous structures │ 1,234,345│ 856,253
26│Locomotives │ 9,021,517│ 5,092,053
27│Passenger equipment │ 3,197,473│ 2,277,271
28│Freight equipment │ 19,734,240│ 13,690,587
29│Miscellaneous equipment │ 702,940│ 423,689
31│Ferries and steamships │ 1,725,000│ 1,095,500
32│Electric plants │ 93,061│ 89,898
33│Terminals. Included in Items 1 to 32 │ │
34│Legal expenses, 0.5% on items 2 to 25,│ 673,349│ 673,349
│ inclusive, and on item 33 │ │
35│Interest, 3% on items 1 to 34, │ 5,290,549│ 5,290,549
│ inclusive │ │
36│Miscellaneous│Organization, 1.5% on │ 2,645,277│ 2,645,277
│ expenses │ items 1 to 34, │ │
│ │ inclusive │ │
│ │Contingencies, 10% on │ 18,428,759│ 15,127,110
│ │ items 1 to 34, │ │
│ │ inclusive │ │
────┼─────────────┴────────────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────
│TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND │ $202,716,262│ $166,398,156
│ EQUIPMENT. │ │
│ │ │
37│Stores and supplies │ 1,474,829│ 1,474,829
│Average per main-line mile │ 28,263│ 23,495
│ " " total-track mile │ 18,627│ 15,290
│ │ │
│TOTAL VALUE OF NON-PHYSICAL ELEMENT │ │ 35,814,043
│ (H. C. ADAMS) │ │
════╧══════════════════════════════════════╧═════════════╧═════════════

_The Result of the Michigan Work._—Any undertaking must be judged by its results. The Attorney-General's report for 1906, on pages 21 and 23, states:

"These cases are among the most important in the history of the State. They constitute the last step in subjecting railroad property in Michigan to taxation on the same basis and at the same rate as other property is taxed, and secure practical uniformity and equality of taxation between railroad and other property.

"As a result of these cases the various railroad corporations paid in taxes $4,787,478.15, and as penalty thereon $1,158,321.18, a total amount of $5,945,799.43 for the years 1902, 1903 and 1904. The 1905 tax being paid soon after the decision of the Supreme Court, nothing was paid under the former law (specific tax on earnings) and, of course, there was no penalty on the 1905 taxes as they were paid before May 1, 1906."

In short, the roads are paying to the State of Michigan an average of $1,595,826.05 more per year than they paid under the old law, and to date the State has received about $10,750,000 more from taxes than it would have received under the old specific tax law.

Railroad development in Michigan has received no appreciable check, and notwithstanding a 2-cent fare and the bearing of an equal burden of taxation, the properties are maintained, and improvements, double-tracking and betterment of general standards fully keep pace with similar work in other States.

Of course, it must be recognized that other forces besides the appraisal helped to bring this about. The appraisal of 1900 furnished the information. Public opinion compelled the passage of the needed laws, and the magnificent legal work of Attorneys-General Blair and Bird, Congressman Townsend, and Judge Knappen, and their associates, loyally supported by Professors Cooley and Adams and the appraisal staff, were all factors in securing the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.

-----

Footnote 5:

Bulletin 21, U. S. Bureau of the Census, p. 78.

Footnote 6:

Bulletin 21, U. S. Bureau of the Census.

RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

_Authority for the Work._—In 1893 the Legislature of Texas enacted what is known as the Stock and Bond Law, which was designed to control and limit the total amount of stocks and bonds that may be issued on any railroad property to the "reasonable value of said railroad property." This law further provides that:

"It shall be the duty of the Railroad Commission to ascertain, and in writing report to the Secretary of State, the value of each railroad in this State including all its franchises, appurtenances and property."

The work of valuation in Texas antedates that in Michigan, and offers some interesting opportunities for comparison of methods under somewhat similar conditions, as far as the existing roads were concerned. The work being in the hands of a permanent commission with very broad powers, it has been possible to secure from recently built roads very full and specific data as to construction, but with these later valuations and with the current work of the department, this paper will not deal.

The Commission of Texas interpreted the law to mean the estimated cost of reproducing or duplicating the properties at the date of valuation, allowing current market prices for all material and fair valuations on all real property.

_Method of Physical Appraisal._—The Commission duly appointed engineers to make these valuations. The railroads of the State were unfavorably disposed toward the work, and were inclined to withhold information.

The Texas staff encountered the difficulty due to destruction or loss of construction records, maps, and profiles. They had for their guidance only the profiles, filed under a prior law, and were thus compelled to depend wholly on original field work to secure their data. From a paper by R. A. Thompson, M. Am. Soc. C. E.,[7] the following description is taken:

"They [the engineers] with the profiles ... in hand, made a detailed inspection of the railroads on the ground. The quantities of excavation and embankment, where the actual quantities could not be obtained, were estimated approximately from the profiles, using the center heights of the cross-sections. The classification of the materials in excavation was determined by inspection. Where original plans and estimates of cost of the bridges, buildings and structures of all kinds could not be obtained from the records of the railroads, their value was estimated from measurements taken on the ground. The extent and acreage of the right of way, the depot and terminal grounds, were determined by actual measurement, or from maps furnished by railroads, or from city and county tax records.

"After an examination of a railroad had been made by the engineers of the Commission, its valuation was prepared on estimate sheets. Upon sheets marked Estimate Sheet A ... were recorded the values of the right of way and depot grounds, roadbed, track, bridges, structures and way building for each mile, the value of ten miles being recorded on each sheet.... On these sheets space was provided for the units and prices, and columns for carrying out the values for each mile and the totals.

"The value of all rolling stock and equipment, and the value of such properties as were properly applicable and chargeable to the entire railroad, were recorded on a separate estimate sheet, only one sheet being used for a railroad."

It thus appears that the general methods of securing the data and making the field examination were quite similar to those adopted on the Michigan work. The classification of items on the sheets is rather more full than on the Michigan summary sheets, but apparently not so completely in detail as the final compilation of work. In general, however, the physical items included are complete in both cases. The form in which the results are finally put up is radically different.

The following points of variations from the practices of the Michigan appraisal are noted:

(_a_) The unit prices were current market prices.

(_b_) The value applied to right of way and real estate used for
railway purposes was in accordance with the current market
value of other property immediately adjoining, disregarding
donations or property acquired at less than value.

(_c_) No deduction was made on account of depreciation, as it
was considered that all structures must be maintained in
first-class, serviceable value, and renewed when necessary,
and no allowance was made for appreciation of roadbed.

(_d_) No allowance was made for franchise values of any kind,
except track rights in streets.

(_e_) No allowance was made for contingencies, except as made in
prices or quantities.

Their practice was in accord with the Michigan appraisal, in allowing from 5 to 6% to cover legal and engineering expenses and superintendence, and from 5 to 6% to cover interest during construction.

_The Result of the Texas Work._—The object sought in Texas was to secure a capitalization in harmony with the actual investment in the physical property; in short, to "squeeze out water."

Of course, all stock and bond issues outstanding in 1894 are still in existence, except as a few roads have been sold out or re-organized. No new issues of stock or bonds may be made on roads in excess of the valuation. Consequently, new roads are limited to issues of bonds not far from $15,000 per mile. The effect is shown by Table 8, from the Railroad Commission's Report.

TABLE 8.—MILES OF RAILWAY IN OPERATION IN TEXAS, 1894 TO 1908,
WITH OUTSTANDING STOCKS AND BONDS.

═══════╤═══════════════╤═══════════════╤═══════════════╤═══════════════
On June│ Miles of │ Stocks │ Bonds │Total stock and
30th. │ railway in │ outstanding, │ outstanding, │ bonds
│ operation. │ per mile. │ per mile. │ outstanding,
│ │ │ │ per mile.
───────┼───────────────┼───────────────┼───────────────┼───────────────
1894│ 9,154│ $15,076│ $25,726│ $40,802
1895│ 9,291│ 14,874│ 25,420│ 40,294
1896│ 9,437│ 14,647│ 25,302│ 39,949
1897│ 9,484│ 14,320│ 24,793│ 39,113
1898│ 9,540│ 14,205│ 24,036│ 38,241
1899│ 9,702│ 13,997│ 23,562│ 37,559
1900│ 9,867│ 13,724│ 23,202│ 36,926
1901│ 10,154│ 12,922│ 22,649│ 35,571
1902│ 10,617│ 12,388│ 21,779│ 34,167
1903│ 11,029│ 11,971│ 21,464│ 33,435
1904│ 11,495│ │ │ 32,400
1905│ 11,662│ │ │ 33,418
1906│ 12,056│ │ │ 32,886
1907│ 12,577│ │ │ 32,142
1908│ 12,830│ │ │ 32,305
═══════╧═══════════════╧═══════════════╧═══════════════╧═══════════════

Total reduction, up to 1903, of stock per mile $3,105
" " " " " " bonds " " 4,262
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total stock and bonds $7,367

E. L. Corthell, M. Am. Soc. C. E., speaking of results secured by the Texas law, says[8]:

"The law, and generally its just operation, has cured many unmitigated and notorious evils. Not only has the public in Texas been benefited, but also the investor in railroad securities from the outside of the State. The people of Texas now have just and uniform rates of transportation, and the investor knows what he is purchasing, and may be reasonably sure of a return on his investment."

Mr. Thompson says[9]:

"Another significant fact is that only a short time before the Stock and Bond Law became effective about 39% of the railroads in Texas were in the hands of receivers. To-day there is not a mile, of the 11,300 miles in Texas, in the hands of receivers, and, with a few unimportant exceptions, no railroad has been in the hands of receivers since the law went into effect. The fact is that there has been no piece of legislation, in this or any other State of the Union during the past decade, which has been so fruitful of results and beneficent in its action, alike to the railroads and the people."

-----

Footnote 7:

_Transactions._ Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. LII. p. 328.

Footnote 8:

_Transactions._ Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. LII. p. 346.

Footnote 9:

_Ibid._, p. 364.

RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.

The State of Wisconsin made a valuation of railroad properties of the State as of June 30th, 1903, the work being under the direction of W. D. Taylor, M. Am. Soc. C. E. The plan adopted, the methods of work, and the general result of independent studies conducted by Professor Taylor have been described so fully in various technical papers and reports elsewhere listed, that a very brief statement of points of difference between the Michigan and Wisconsin works appears to be all that is necessary here.

Professor Taylor associated with him for consultation Professor Cooley, of Michigan, made a careful study of methods used in earlier appraisals, used the Michigan blank forms as a basis for the preparation of his own, and thoroughly outlined his general plan and the scope of the information desired before actually organizing his staff or commencing work.

In connection with the earlier stages of the work, conferences were held with the officials of the principal railways of the State, and developed a thorough understanding and plans for co-operation between the appraiser and the roads. As a result of these conferences, each large railway company of the State, acting through its heads of departments, made an inventory and appraisal of its own property in the State, using therefor the forms and blanks prepared by the appraiser. At the same time, the appraiser organized a considerably smaller force than was used in Michigan, made his own office and field inspection, and secured data to complete the appraisal on the small roads, in which their own engineering or operating departments were not organized so as to do the work according to plan.

The work turned out by the large roads was then checked by this force, the various points in which they were out of harmony were checked and unified, a number of hearings were held, certain portions of the work were checked over by the appraisers' men, sundry changes in quantity and price were made, and finally, when the work was compiled and put in shape for presentation, the appraiser had reason to believe that he had secured a result which was reasonably free from error, and one in which the railroads had co-operated to such an extent that no charge of prejudice or unfairness would lie.

It is noted that the average cost of reproduction and the present value per mile in Wisconsin are higher than in Michigan, which is probably as it should be, as Michigan has a less mileage of high-class main trunk line road than Wisconsin.

In general, the two appraisals were very similar. The determination of unit prices, the placing of depreciation, the apportionment of locomotives, freight, and passenger equipment, and other rolling stock, the use of the Interstate Commerce Commission's construction classification, the application of percentage values for engineering, interest during construction, administration, legal expenses, and contingencies (this latter fixed at 5.5%), all were along lines similar to those developed in Michigan.

The work of the Wisconsin appraisal was carried on at the same time as the second Michigan appraisal. The investigations made by Mr. Van Ranst Pond and the writer, as to the actual sale prices of right of way, fully discussed heretofore, were conducted at the same time as Professor Taylor's work in Wisconsin was being done, and neither party had any knowledge of the work of the other. The prior discussion relative to this phase of the Michigan valuation is practically a revision of a memorandum submitted by the writer to the Attorney-General in January, 1904. The tables are abstracted from much more extensive ones which, supported by the evidence of Registers of Deeds of some ten counties of Michigan, are part of the record of evidence in Michigan Central Railroad _vs._ Powers. It is, therefore, not only of great interest, but great value, as supporting Professor Cooley's right-of-way valuations, to note the following extract[10] from Professor Taylor's discussion of the paper by Mr. R. A. Thompson on the Texas railroad valuations:

"In the Wisconsin appraisal, the method followed for valuing the right of way and terminal lands was about as given below. Parts of the right of way of some of the larger systems are estimated at higher ratios than this, but in such cases the roads themselves fixed the right-of-way value.

"The market value for other purposes of the right of way and terminal lands was judged to be the same as that of contiguous property.

"In farming lands, small towns, and suburban and residence property, the right-of-way value was taken to be 250% of the market value for other purposes.

"In city property, the right-of-way value was taken to be 133% of the market value for other purposes, where the land was owned in strips of 100 ft. width or less, and 110% of the market value for other purposes, where the land was owned in blocks, or in widths greater than 100 ft."

No effort whatever was made in the Wisconsin valuation to determine any non-physical or intangible values, the report covering only cost of reproduction and present value of the physical properties.

The Wisconsin work is noteworthy as the first appraisal in which the hearty co-operation of the railroads was secured from the outset. In Michigan the roads at the inception viewed the work with distrust, but by the completion were in hearty sympathy with the efforts of the appraiser to use just and honorable methods, and the managements extended every courtesy in the way of access to records for verification purposes.

-----

Footnote 10:

_Transactions_, Am Soc. C. E., Vol. LII. p. 359.

THE MINNESOTA STATE RAILWAY APPRAISAL.

The valuation of railway properties in the State of Minnesota was undertaken with a view to establishing a basis for rate-making. The work was in charge of Mr. Dwight C. Morgan, Engineer of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State, whose full and complete report is a very valuable addition to the literature of valuation practice. This work was undertaken after the completion of that in Michigan and Wisconsin, and advantage was taken of the experiences of the appraisers in these two States. The Wisconsin plan of co-operation with the railroads was adopted, and each company scheduled and appraised its own lines.

The "cost of reproduction," and "present value of physical properties" were the two sets of figures shown in the final results.

Unit prices were fixed on the basis of current prices in 1905, in preference to an average of 5 or 10 years.

Apportionment of locomotives and rolling stock was made on an engine- and car-mileage basis. The organization of an office force was undertaken, and special study was made of the subjects of unit prices and the various local conditions surrounding the different properties, checking of quantities of earthwork, rails, etc., and preparing to harmonize and unify the estimates as they should be received from the railroads.

The greatest difference between this work and that in the other States was the fact that the field inspection, instead of being made by many men, was made by Appraiser Morgan, accompanied by two assistants, inspection being made in a special train, which was paid for by the State.

The detailed reports of the railroad companies were completed and in the hands of the appraiser, maps and profiles of the road were prepared and available, the train was run at slow speed, and many stops were made for examination of bridges, culverts, and structures. About 100 miles per day were covered, but this did not include the larger terminals of St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth, which were given many days.

In the preparation of final summaries, percentage values were placed as follows:

Engineering, superintendence, and legal 4½ per cent.

Contingencies 5 " "

Interest, time of construction varying according to 4 " "
mileage from 1 to 8 years

In addition to these three items, the item of "adaptation and solidification of roadbed" was given a large place, being, for all the roads of the State, $11,743,007.15. This feature was novel to this class of valuation, and it is to be regretted that, in his report, the appraiser did not narrate more fully the detailed methods by which he arrived at his resultant figure.

_Land Valuation._—The vexed question of a proper value to give to lands owned by a railway company, was treated by Appraiser Morgan in a different way than it had been in Wisconsin or Michigan. A number of special agents were appointed, who made an exhaustive study of the transfers and assessed values throughout the State. The discussion of this subject in Mr. Morgan's report is exhaustive, and of great interest. The conclusions are quoted. It is regretted that the discussion of methods of valuation can only be given in brief form.

"Careful and full consideration of all information made available for establishing the value of the right of way owned and used by the railway companies for railway purposes, led to the conclusion that in the state at large exclusive of the three terminals of St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth, a multiple of three (3) applied to the true value or normal value of lands, as obtained from the transfers, would in general satisfy the conditions.

"During the period referred to, the railway companies paid for the property acquired by them, over and above its normal value, an amount sufficient to justify the use of the following multiples: St. Paul, one and three-fourths (1¾); Minneapolis, one and three-fifths (1⅗), and Duluth, one and one-fourth (1¼), which when applied to the normal value of the lands as established from contiguous and surrounding property, formed the basis for measuring the cost of reproducing the existing terminals of the railway companies."

In the final compilation of results, two sets of schedules were rendered:

(_a_) Those which gave the land values with added increment,

(_b_) Those which omitted the increment.

The cost of the engineering work was about $70,000; this covered 7,596.4 miles of main track, 427.4 miles of second track, and 2,414 miles of side-track, or a total of 10,437.8 miles of all tracks. As yet there has been no decision by the Courts on the Minnesota rate cases.

_Forms Used in the Compilation of Information._—The forms used in the Michigan appraisal have been described and fully illustrated. They were all printed on 8½ by 11-in. sheets.

The Wisconsin appraisal used the Michigan forms as a basis, twenty of them being practically identical with the corresponding Michigan forms. The forms shown by Figs. 11 to 21 are materially different from those used in Michigan.

The forms used in Minnesota in 1906 were based on those of Michigan and Wisconsin, and were printed on 14 by 18½-in. sheets. They were remodeled and elaborated to such an extent, however, that the writer believes himself justified in submitting reproductions of the entire set, as representing the most complete form for inventory yet used on any of the State appraisals.

The appraiser in Nebraska in 1909, and Mr. Hansel in New Jersey in 1910, have both returned to the 8½ by 11-in. sheets, and, while both clearly followed earlier precedent in general, both have modified the details to suit the requirements in their respective States.

THE WASHINGTON STATE APPRAISAL.

The State of Washington, through its Railroad Commissioners, made an appraisal of railroad properties within its borders, the work being under the direction of Halbert P. Gillette, M. Am. Soc. C. E.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 1 __________________│ │APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│ │Name of Road ____ ROADBED REPORT _________________│ │ _Field Inspector_│ │Between __ and __ PART I Date ______ 190__│

╒════════╤════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════════ │LOCATION│ ACRES │TOTAL EXCAVATION │ TIES │ │ │ AND EMBANKMENT │ ├────────┼────────┼─────┬─────┬─────┼──────┬────┬───────── │ │Clearing│Earth│Loose│Solid│Number│Kind│Condition │ │ and │ cu. │Rock │Rock │ │ │ │ │Grubbing│yds. │ cu. │ cu. │ │ │ │ │ │ │yds. │yds. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼────┼───────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼────┼───────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤════════════════╤═══════════════════════╕ │ BALLAST │ RAILS │ │ │ │ ┼──────┬─────────┼──────┬──────┬─────────┤ │ Kind │Condition│Length│Weight│Condition│ │ and │ │ of │ │ │ │Amount│ │Single│ │ │ │ │ │Track │ │ │ │ │ │in ft.│ │ │ ┼──────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼──────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 2 __________________│ │APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│ │Name of Road ____ ROADBED REPORT _________________│ │ _Field Inspector_│ │Between __ and __ PART II Date ______ 190__│

╒════════╤═════════════════════╤═══════════════════════ │LOCATION│TIE PLATES AND BRACES│ FASTENINGS ├────────┼──────┬────┬─────────┼──────┬──────┬───────── │ │Number│Kind│Condition│Number│Weight│Condition │ │ │ │ │ │ per │ │ │ │ │ │ │ foot │ ├────────┼──────┼────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼───────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────────┼──────┼────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼───────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤═════════════════════╤═══════════════════════╕ │ FROGS AND SWITCHES │ R.R. CROSSINGS │ ┼──────┬────┬─────────┼──────┬──────┬─────────┤ │Number│Kind│Condition│Number│ Rail │Condition│ │ │ │ │ │Weight│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼──────┼────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼──────┼────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 6 __________________│ │APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│ │Name of Road ____ SIGNAL APPARATUS _________________│ │ _Field Inspector_│ │Between __ and __ Date ______ 190__│

╒════╤═══════════╤══════════════╤═══════════╤═══════╤════════════╤════╕ │ │ LOCATION │ NAME AND │ No. Miles │ Cost │ Condition │ │ │ │ │ DESCRIPTION │Single Line│ New │ Per Cent │ │ ├────┼───────────┼──────────────┼───────────┼───────┼────────────┼────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────┼───────────┼──────────────┼───────────┼───────┼────────────┼────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 8 __________________│ │APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│ │Name of Road ____ MISCELLANEOUS _________________│ │ _Field Inspector_│ │Between __ and __ ROADWAY ITEMS Date ______ 190__│

╒═══╤════════╤═══════════════════╤═════════╤═════════════════════╤════╕ │ │LOCATION│Sets Section Tools,│Condition│ CROSSING PROTECTION │ │ │ │ │ Hand Cars, etc. │Per Cent │ │ │ ├───┼────────┼───────────────────┼─────────┼────┬──────┬─────────┼────┤ │ │ │ │ │Kind│Amount│Condition│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Per Cent │ │ ├───┼────────┼───────────────────┼─────────┼────┼──────┼─────────┼────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├───┼────────┼───────────────────┼─────────┼────┼──────┼─────────┼────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 9 __________________│ │APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│ │Name of Road ____ TELEGRAPH, INSTRUMENTS AND _________________│ │ STATION EQUIPMENT _Field Inspector_│ │Between __ and __ Date ______ 190__│

╒═╤═════╤═══════╤════╤═════════╤════════════════╤═════════╤════╤═ │ │OWNER│ LINE │KEYS│SOUNDINGS│ RELAYS │Repeaters│Cut │ │ │ │BETWEEN│ │ │ │ │Outs│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼─────┼───────┼────┼─────────┼───────┬───┬────┼─────────┼────┼─ │ │ │ │ │ │Western│Box│Key │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Union │ │ on │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │base│ │ │ ├─┼─────┼───────┼────┼─────────┼───────┼───┼────┼─────────┼────┼─ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼─────┼───────┼────┼─────────┼───────┼───┼────┼─────────┼────┼─ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤═══════════════╤═══════╤═══════╤═════════╤═════════╤═╕ │ SWITCH BOARDS │Number │Make of│ Length │Condition│ │ │ │ of │Battery│Telegraph│Per Cent │ │ │ │Battery│ │ or │ │ │ │ │ Cells │ │Telephone│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Lines │ │ │ ┼──────┬──────┬─┼───────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┼─┤ │Number│Number│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ of │ of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Straps│Boards│ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼──────┼──────┼─┼───────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼──────┼──────┼─┼───────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 38 __________________│ │APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│ │Name of Road ____ FENCES, CATTLE GUARDS AND _________________│ │ HIGHWAY CROSSINGS _Field Inspector_│ │Between __ and __ Date ______ 190__│

╒═╤════════╤══════╤═══════╤═════╤═════╤═════╤═════╤═════════╤══════ │ │LOCATION│ Wire │Length │ No. │Size │ No. │Size │Condition│ Kind │ │ │ or │ of │Posts│ of │Plank│ of │Per Cent │ of │ │ │Wooden│ Fence │ Per │Posts│ or │Plank│ │Cattle │ │ │Fence │(Single│Mile │ │Wire │ or │ │Guard │ │ │ │ Line) │ │ │ Per │Wire │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Mile │ │ │ ├─┼────────┼──────┼───────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────────┼────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼────────┼──────┼───────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────────┼────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤═════════╤════════╤═════════╕ │Condition│Ft. B.M.│Condition│ │Per Cent │Crossing│Per Cent │ │ │ Plank │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼─────────┼────────┼─────────┤ │ │ │ │ ┼─────────┼────────┼─────────┤ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 42 __________________│ │APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│ │Name of Road ____ TIMBER TRESTLES AND OPENINGS _________________│ │ _Field Inspector_│ │Between __ and __ Date ______ 190__│

╒═╤════════╤════════════════════╤═══════╤═════╤═══════════╤═════════╤═╕ │ │LOCATION│ DESCRIPTION │Average│ No. │ Average │Condition│ │ │ │ │ Total Length; Pile │Height │Piles│Penetration│Per Cent │ │ │ │ │ or Frame; Number │ Top │ Per │ of Piles │ │ │ │ │ │ Stringers; B.M. │Ground │Bent │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Framing; Per Lin. │To Base│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Ft., Etc. │ Rail │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼────────┼────────────────────┼───────┼─────┼───────────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼────────┼────────────────────┼───────┼─────┼───────────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │Name of Operating Form 21 _________________│ │Company __________ _Field Inspector_│ │Section Number ______ MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│ │From ______ To ______ WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│ │ RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │ │ DOCKS AND WHARVES │ │ With or Without Coal or Ore Handling Equipment │

╒═╤═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │ │ DOCKS AND WHARVES │ │ │ │ ├─┼────────┬────┬──────────┬──────┬───────┬────────┬───────┬──────── │ │LOCATION│Item│Dimensions│Piles │Framing│Platform│Masonry│Concrete │ │ │ │ │Lineal│ B.M. │ B.M. │ Cubic │ Cubic │ │ │ │ │ Feet │ Feet │ Feet │ Yards │ Yards │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼────────┼────┼──────────┼──────┼───────┼────────┼───────┼──────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼────────┼────┼──────────┼──────┼───────┼────────┼───────┼──────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

══════════════════════╤══════════════════════════════════════════════ │ SUPERSTRUCTURE FOR HANDLING COAL OR ORE │ │ ┬───────┬───┬─────────┼────┬──────────┬──────┬───────┬────────┬────── │Filling│Age│Condition│Type│Dimensions│Timber│Number │Capacity│Number │ Cubic │ │Per Cent │ │ │ B.M. │ of │ of │ of │ Yards │ │ │ │ │ Feet │Pockets│Pockets │Hoists │ Earth │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Stone │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼───────┼───┼─────────┼────┼──────────┼──────┼───────┼────────┼────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼───────┼───┼─────────┼────┼──────────┼──────┼───────┼────────┼────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

════╤════════════╤═════════╤═╕ │ COMPLETE │ Average │ │ │ PLANT │Condition│ │ │ │Per Cent │ │ ┬───┼────────────┼─────────┼─┤ │Age│ Cost of │ │ │ │ │Reproduction│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼───┼────────────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ ┼───┼────────────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │Name of Operating Form 22 _________________│ │Company __________ _Field Inspector_│ │Section Number ______ MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│ │From ______ To ______ WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│ │ RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │ │ INTERLOCKING PLANTS │

╒═╤════════╤═══════╤═════╤═════════════════════╤═══════ │ │LOCATION│Name of│When │ TOWER HOUSE │Kind of │ │ │Railway│Built│ │Machine │ │ │Crossed│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼────────┼───────┼─────┼────┬──────────┬─────┼─────── │ │ │ │ │Kind│Dimensions│Cond.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Per │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Ct. │ ├─┼────────┼───────┼─────┼────┼──────────┼─────┼─────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼────────┼───────┼─────┼────┼──────────┼─────┼─────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤════════════════╤════════════════════════╤════════════╤══════════ │NUMBER OF LEVERS│KIND OF CONNECTION PIPE │Foundations,│ SIGNAL │ │ OR WIRE TO │ Wood or │ POSTS │ │ │ Concrete │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼────┬─────┬─────┼───────┬────────┬───────┼────────────┼────┬───── │Work│Spare│Total│Derails│Switches│Signals│ │High│Dwarf │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼────┼─────┼─────┼───────┼────────┼───────┼────────────┼────┼───── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼────┼─────┼─────┼───────┼────────┼───────┼────────────┼────┼───── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤════════════════════════╤════════╤═════════╤════════════╤═══════════ │ NUMBER OF FUNCTIONS │ELECTRIC│ Average │Per Cent of │Per Cent of │ OPERATED │CIRCUIT │Condition│Construction│Maintenance │ │ FOR │Per Cent │Cost Paid By│ Cost Paid │ │ │ │This Company│ By This │ │ │ │ │ Company │ │ │ │ │ ┼───────┬────────┬───────┼──┬──┬──┼─────────┼────────────┼─────────── │Derails│Switches│Signals│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼───────┼────────┼───────┼──┼──┼──┼─────────┼────────────┼─────────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼───────┼────────┼───────┼──┼──┼──┼─────────┼────────────┼─────────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤═════════╤════════════╤═╕ │Per Cent │ Cost of │ │ │ of │Reproduction│ │ │Operating│ │ │ │Cost Paid│ │ │ │ By This │ │ │ │ Company │ │ │ ┼─────────┼────────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼─────────┼────────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ ┼─────────┼────────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │Name of Operating Form 23 _________________│ │Company __________ _Field Inspector_│ │Section Number ______ MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│ │From ______ To ______ WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│ │ RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │ │ SIGNAL APPARATUS │

╒════════╤════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │LOCATION│ TRAIN ORDER AND MANUAL BLOCK SIGNALS OPERATED IN │ │ CONJUNCTION WITH THE TELEGRAPH ├────────┼──────┬────────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬────── │ │ Type │Manufactured│ Number │Condition│Miles of │ Type │ │ of │ by │Installed│Per Cent │ Single │ of │ │Signal│ │ │ │ Line │Signal │ │ │ │ │ │Protected│ ├────────┼──────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────────┼──────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │ AUTOMATIC BLOCK SIGNALS │ ┼────────────┬─────────┬──────────┬────────┬─────────┬─────────┬────── │Manufactured│ Number │ Number │Circuit │Miles of │Condition│ Type │ by │Installed│ Switch │Track or│ Single │Per Cent │ of │ │ │Indicators│ Wire │ Line │ │Signal │ │ │ │ │Protected│ │ ┼────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤════════════════════════════ │ DISTANT SWITCH SIGNALS │ ┼─────────┬─────────┬──────── │ Number │Condition│Location │Installed│Per Cent │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼─────────┼─────────┼──────── │ │ │ ┼─────────┼─────────┼──────── │ │ │

╤════════════════════════════════════════╤═╕ │ ELECTRIC BELLS FOR HIGHWAY CROSSING │ │ │ PROTECTION │ │ ┼────────────┬─────────┬───────┬─────────┼─┤ │Manufactured│ Number │Circuit│Condition│ │ │ by │Installed│ Track │Per Cent │ │ │ │ │or Wire│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼────────────┼─────────┼───────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼────────────┼─────────┼───────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │Name of Operating Form 24 _________________│ │Company __________ _Field Inspector_│ │Section Number ______ MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│ │From ______ To ______ WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│ │ RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │ │ TELEGRAPH, TELEPHONE LINES │ │ & APPURTENANCES │ │ _In Case Lines are not Owned, Only Show Such Equipment as Actually │ │ Belongs to the Railroad Company Office Compiler_ │

╒═╤════════╤═════╤═══════════════════════════════════════════════ │ │LOCATION│OWNER│ ├─┼────────┼─────┼──────┬──────┬──────┬─────┬──────┬──────┬────── │ │ │ │Number│Number│Number│Kind │Number│Number│Number │ │ │ │ │ │ of │ of │ of │ of │ of │ │ │ │ │ │Miles │Poles│Wires │ Wire │ Keys │ │ │ │ │ │ │ per │Strung│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Mile │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼────────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼────────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ GENERAL DESCRIPTION ┬────────┬──────┬────────┬────────────┬───────┬──────┬──────────── │ Number │Number│ Number │ Number of │Kind of│Number│ Cost of │ of │ of │ and │ Telephone │Battery│ of │Reproduction │Sounders│Relays│Capacity│Transmitters│ │Cells │ │ │ │ of │ and │ │ │ │ │ │ Switch │ Receivers │ │ │ │ │ │ Boards │ │ │ │ ┼────────┼──────┼────────┼────────────┼───────┼──────┼──────────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼────────┼──────┼────────┼────────────┼───────┼──────┼──────────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │

══════════╤═══════╕ │REMARKS│ ┬─────────┼───────┤ │Condition│ │ │Per Cent │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼─────────┼───────┤ │ │ │ ┼─────────┼───────┤ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │Name of Operating Form 25 _________________│ │Company __________ _Field Inspector_│ │Locomotives in Service MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│ │in Minnesota WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│ │______ Total Number RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │ │ LOCOMOTIVES │

╒═╤═══════╤════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │ │Name of│ │ │Builder│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼───────┼──────┬─────┬────────┬───────┬──────────┬──────┬──────── │ │ │Engine│Class│ Simple │Service│Dimensions│Diam. │Working │ │ │Number│ │ or │ │ of │ of │Pressure │ │ │ │ │Compound│ │Cylinders │Boiler│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼───────┼──────┼─────┼────────┼───────┼──────────┼──────┼──────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼───────┼──────┼─────┼────────┼───────┼──────────┼──────┼──────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼───────┼──────┼─────┼────────┼───────┼──────────┼──────┼──────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ENGINES

┬─────────┬───────┬────────┬──────┬────────┬─────────┬─────┬─────── │ Driving │Weight │ Weight │Weight│Hauling │ Brake │When │ When │ Wheels │ on │ on │ on │Capacity│Equipment│Built│ Given │ │Driving│Trailing│Truck │ │ │ │General │ │Wheels │ Wheels │ │ │ │ │Repairs ┼───┬─────┼───────┼────────┼──────┼────────┼─────────┼─────┼─────── │No.│Diam.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼───┼─────┼───────┼────────┼──────┼────────┼─────────┼─────┼─────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼───┼─────┼───────┼────────┼──────┼────────┼─────────┼─────┼─────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤═════════════════╤══════╤════════════╤═════════╤═╕ │ TENDER │Total │ Cost of │Condition│ │ │ │Weight│Reproduction│Per Cent │ │ │ │Engine│ │ │ │ │ │ & │ │ │ │ │ │Tender│ │ │ │ │ │Loaded│ │ │ │ ┼────────┬────────┼──────┼────────────┼─────────┼─┤ │ Water │ Coal │ │ │ │ │ │Capacity│Capacity│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼────────┼────────┼──────┼────────────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼────────┼────────┼──────┼────────────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼────────┼────────┼──────┼────────────┼─────────┼─┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │Name of Operating Form 26 _________________│ │Company __________ _Field Inspector_│ │Passenger Equipment on MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│ │System ______ Cars WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│ │Passenger Equipment RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │ │Assigned to Minnesota │ │______ Cars │ │Passenger Car Mileage, PASSENGER EQUIPMENT │ │System ______ Miles │ │Passenger Car Mileage, │ │Minnesota ______ Miles │

╒═╤══════╤═════════╤═════╤══════════╤═════════╤═══════╤══════╤════ │ │Serial│ Kind of │Class│Dimensions│Design of│Kind of│Number│Kind │ │Number│Equipment│ │ │Vestibule│Coupler│ of │ of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Seats │Heat │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼──────┼─────────┼─────┼──────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┼──── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼──────┼─────────┼─────┼──────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┼──── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤═════╤══════╤═════════╤═══════╤═════╤═══════╤════════════╤═════════ │Kind │Trucks│ Brake │Name of│When │ Total │ Cost of │Condition │ of │Number│Equipment│Builder│Built│Number │Reproduction│Per Cent │Light│ of │ │ │ │of Cars│ │ │ │Wheels│ │ │ │Now in │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Service│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼─────┼──────┼─────────┼───────┼─────┼───────┼────────────┼───────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼─────┼──────┼─────────┼───────┼─────┼───────┼────────────┼───────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤═════════╕ │ Give │ │Number of│ │Cars Each│ │ Series │ │Assigned │ │ to │ │Minnesota│ ┼─────────┤ │ │ ┼─────────┤ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │Name of Operating Form 27 _________________│ │Company __________ _Field Inspector_│ │Freight Car Mileage, MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│ │System ______ Miles WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│ │Freight Car Mileage, RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │ │Minnesota ______ Miles │ │ FREIGHT CAR EQUIPMENT │ │ Include Cabooses in this Statement. │

╒═╤═══════╤═════════╤═════╤══════════╤════════╤════════╤════════ │ │Serial │Class of │Sills│Dimensions│Capacity│Kind of │Size of │ │Numbers│Equipment│ and │ │ │Couplers│Journals │ │ │ │Body │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Steel│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ or │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Wood │ │ │ │ ├─┼───────┼─────────┼─────┼──────────┼────────┼────────┼──────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─┼───────┼─────────┼─────┼──────────┼────────┼────────┼──────── │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

╤═════════╤═══════╤═════╤═══════╤════════════╤═════════╤═══════╕ │ Brake │Name of│When │Number │ Cost of │Condition│REMARKS│ │Equipment│Builder│Built│of Cars│Reproduction│Per Cent │ │ │ │ │ │Now in │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Service│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼─────────┼───────┼─────┼───────┼────────────┼─────────┼───────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┼─────────┼───────┼─────┼───────┼────────────┼─────────┼───────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │Name of Operating Form 28 _________________│ │Company __________ _Field Inspector_│ │ MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│ │ WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│ │ RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │ │ MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT │ │ Include Snow Plows, Flangers, Steam Shovels, Pile Drivers, Derrick │ │ Cars, Dredges, and all Special Equipment, Located or used in │ │ Minnesota. │

╒═══╤═════════╤════════════╤════════╤════╤═════════════╤══════════╤═══╕ │ │LOCATION │DESCRIPTION │Name of │Age │ Cost of │Condition │ │ │ │ │ │Builder │ │Reproduction │ Per Cent │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │Name of Operating Form 14 _________________│ │Company __________ _Field Inspector_│ │Section Number ______ MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│ │From ______ To ______ WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│ │ RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │ │ STATION BUILDINGS AND │ │ FIXTURES │ │ Including Station Equipment and Platforms │