Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
Member of
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
\ 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-