Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000063 82

Image

File
Download upr000063-082.tif (image/tiff; 26.55 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000063-082
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    \ not accepted as correct. It may be that some of the additions referred to in the above list are included in the facilities referred to at the bottom of page 15 of the Commission’s opinion which are not designated by years. An accurate comparison cannot be made, but it is certain that the total of the costs shown inthe opinion for additions made in 1946 and those not assigned to any year is not equal to either '1344,333.35 or $261,402.90. It is ob­vious that by disregarding the testimony in this case as to book value, the Commission has constructed from fragmentary and inaccurate information an erroneous and deficient capital base for the Railroad Company. The Commission may not validly reduce the book value of the facilities of the Railroad Company without evidence just­ifying its actions. The book investment is presumed to be cor­rect in the absence of an attack thereon and evidence showing them to be unreliable. The books of the Railroad Company are kept in accordance with the accounting classifications of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The following language of the United States Supreme Court in the case of West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, infra, is pertinent in this regard. In that case the Court refused to approve the disallowance by the Commission of operating expense shown in the books of the Com­pany in the following language: I?l. The company'made claim to an allowance for ’unaccounted for gas4, which is gas lost as a result of leakage, condensation, expansion or contraction. -32-