SPECIAL REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 North Dakota Tax Commission 
 
 on Assessment of Railroads 
 in North Dakota 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Governor, Legislature 
 
 AND THE 
 
 State Board of Equalization 
 
 OF THE 
 
 State of North Dakota 
 
 1915 
 
 F. E. PACKARD, 
 
 G. E. WALLACE, 
 
 H. H. STEELE, 
 
 Commissioners. 
 C. R. KOSITZKY, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 m 
 
 Jit - 
 
REPORT TO THE 
 
 NORTH DAKOTA TAX COMMISSION 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 BY 
 
 E. DANA DURAND 
 
 Ex Director of the Federal Census and Professor of Economics 
 University of Minnesota 
 
 ESTIMATED TRUE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF THE 
 GREAT NORTHERN, NORTHERN PACIFIC 
 AND MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL AND 
 SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAYS, 
 
 AND OF NORTH DAKOTA’S 
 SHARE THEREOF 
 
 F. E. PACKARD, 
 
 G. E. WALLACE, 
 
 H. H. STEELE, 
 
 Commissioners. 
 C. R. KOSITZKY, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 
 
 To Honorable L. B. Hanna, Governor, the Legislature, and the Honorable 
 Members of the State Board of Equalization of the State of North 
 Dakota: 
 
 We transmit herewith a special Report of the North Dakota Tax 
 Commission on the assessment of railroads in North Dakota. This report 
 consists largely of the investigations of E. Dana Durand and contains 
 valuable information upon the subject of railroads in their relation to 
 taxation in North Dakota. The report is made at this time so that it may 
 be considered by you while sitting as the State Board of Equalization, and 
 we trust it will be of some value to you in solving the difficult problem of 
 arriving at a fair and just valuation of the railroads of the state. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 F. E. PACKARD, 
 
 GEO. E. WALLACE, 
 
 H. H. STEELE, 
 
 Commissioners. 
 
 C. R. Kositzky. Secretary. 
 

 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/reporttonorthdakOOdura 
 
RECOM M EN DAT10NS OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSION 
 
 August 19, 1915. 
 
 To the Honorable State Board of Equalization, 
 
 Bismarck, North Dakota. 
 
 Gentlemen: — 
 
 At your annual meeting during the year 1914 the Tax Commission pre¬ 
 sented to you certain recommendations relative to the assessment of the 
 principal railroads in this state. This compilation was arrived at after 
 weeks of labor and research. In our compilation we found that the North¬ 
 ern Pacific, Great Northern, Soo and Milwaukee railroads should be mate¬ 
 rially increased for assessment purposes. At that time we calculated that 
 the increase would be in the neighborhood of eighteen million dollars 
 assessed valuation. This year we have been so fortunate as to obtain the 
 services of E. Dana Durand, ex-director of the United States Census and 
 head of the Department of Economics and Political Science of the Univer¬ 
 sity of Minnesota. No one can dispute his authority in the matter of railway 
 valuations. There is none better in the Nation. Attached hereto we hand you 
 his full report of the first three railroads above named. He sent us his report 
 on the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway after the data on the first 
 three railways had been printed. The information used in making this 
 compilation is taken entirely from the report of the railways to the North 
 Dakota Railway Commission. The figures on the Milwaukee system are 
 submitted to you in typewritten form. You will notice therein that he 
 recommended the Milwaukee system to be assessed on an average with 
 the assessment of the three principal railways of the state. 
 
 The methods used by Dr. Durand in arriving at the physical values of 
 the railways of the state are two-fold, taking the average of the two. 
 These methods are fully described and explained in the text. He determines 
 that the commercial value of the Great Northern railway in this state 
 is $100,632,214; the Northern Pacific, $84,960 620, and the Soo, $44,725,478. 
 Reducing this to a twenty-five per cent basis, which has been uniformly 
 recommended by this Commission to all assessors, boards of review and 
 boards of equalization in this state, we find that the Great Northern should 
 be assessed on its entire line in this state $25,158,053; the Northern 
 Pacific, $21 240,155, the Soo $11,181,369, and the Milwaukee, $4,537,137, 
 making a total of $62,116,714. 
 
 The assessment of the Milwaukee is in accordance with Dr. Durand’s 
 report. It is based upon the average of the other three railways in the 
 state, namely at $12^010 per mile on 377.78 miles, which does not take into 
 consideration the sidings. 
 
 The compilation herewith submitted has been figured entirely separate 
 from our report to your honorable body for the year 1914 and has been 
 reached through the means of averages of standard methods of placing 
 values upon this class of property. Although figured from some¬ 
 what a different angle from the method used by us a year ago, we find 
 
that the figures of Dr. Durand’s show that the railroads of this state 
 should be raised over the assessment of 1914 to an amount a little in 
 excess of seventeen million dollars, thus fully justifying our recommenda¬ 
 tions of a year ago. 
 
 There are some other railroads in the state insignificant in mileage. 
 We have no recommendations as to those, but on the assessment for the 
 year 1915 of the four principal railroads of the state, we recommend that 
 they be assessed in accordance herewith. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 NORTH DAKOTA TAX COMMISSION, 
 
 By F. E. Packard, 
 
 Geo. E Wallace. 
 
 BY COMMISSIONER STEELE— 
 
 I do not join in the foregoing recommendations for the reason that 
 being a new member of the Commission, I have not given to the subject 
 of the railroads of the state the study and consideration it should have 
 and which has been given to it by the senior members of this Commission, 
 and I do not feel myself qualified to make specific recommendations with¬ 
 out a thorough study and investigation. 
 
 However, what investigations I have made from different sources leads 
 me to believe that certain of the railroad properties of the state should be 
 raised, notably that of the Northern Pacific, which appears from all angles 
 to be under-assessed. Further, that certain portions of the Great Northern 
 and Milwaukee roads should be raised. 
 
 The laws of our state provide for the assessment of the railroad fran¬ 
 chise. In your action upon the assessment of railroads I believe you should 
 consider the franchise and the earning power of the railroad, together 
 with its ability to pay, as factors in determining the amount of your 
 assessment. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 H. H. STEELE. 
 
REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF RAILROADS IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 Scope 
 
 • This report deals primarily with the assessment of the Great Northern, 
 Northern Pacific, and the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie (here¬ 
 after called the “Soo Line”) railroads. The mileage of the other railroads 
 in the state is so small that their assessment is a matter of much less 
 importance. Moreover in the case of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, 
 and the Chicago & North Western railroads the proportion of total mile¬ 
 age which lies in North Dakota is so slight that the application of the 
 unit system of valuation and the apportionment of a proper share thereof 
 for North Dakota affords a less satisfactory basis than for the three rail¬ 
 roads first named. 
 
 The object of this report is chiefly to ascertain the true value of (.hat 
 part of the property of railroads which lies in North Dakota. What pro¬ 
 portion of true value should be entered on the assessment rolls is another 
 matter, depending upon the general policy of the state with reference to 
 the rate of assessment of property. 
 
4 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 THE UNIT SYSTEM OF VALUATION 
 
 North Dakota Statutes virtually require unit valuation. 
 
 The tax statutes of North Dakota require the State Board of Equaliza¬ 
 tion in assessing railroads to assess the value of the franchise as well as 
 that of the road bed, rails, rolling stock, etc. Without going into a techni¬ 
 cal discussion of the meaning of the word franchise, it may be said that 
 economists and courts generally agree in substance that the value of a 
 franchise is the excess of the total value of a corporation as a going con¬ 
 cern over the physical value of its assets. By requiring the assessment 
 of the franchise, the statute virtually requires the determination of the 
 total value of the property of a railroad as a going business. This value, 
 hereinafter for brevity called “commercial value” may be found to exceed 
 the physical value of railroad property or it may be found to fall below 
 that value. 
 
 Commercial Value of property basis of taxation where it exceeds physical 
 value. 
 
 It requires no argument to show that the commercial value is a truer 
 index to the tax paying ability and a more just basis for assessment than 
 the physical value, at least, in those cases where the commercial value 
 exceeds the physical value. 
 
 In the first place by assessing the commercial value of railroads the 
 state places them on the same basis as land, which constitutes the great 
 bulk of the taxable property of the state. There is no such thing as a 
 physical value of land or value independent of its capacity to produce 
 income. The value of farm land may rise or fall with the mere change 
 in prices of products derived from it, and without the slightest change in 
 the characteristics of the land itself or without the slightest addition there¬ 
 to or subtraction therefrom. As a matter of fact, the great increase in the 
 assessment of farm lands in North Dakota in the last decade or so has 
 been primarily due to the increase in commercial value, due in turn chiefly 
 to higher prices of farm products. Land sells on the basis of the capi¬ 
 talization of its annual productive power. This does not mean, of course, 
 that the value of any particular farm is the capitalization of the actual 
 income derived by the owner. The degree of skill and energy with 
 which he tills the land, greatly affect that income. The value is the 
 capitalization of that which the average farmer considered as a buyer 
 thinks he could get out of the land. 
 
 It is obviously unjust that the farmer should have to pay more taxes 
 when his farm becomes more profitable through the advance of prices, 
 if the railroad companies pay no more taxes when their property be¬ 
 comes more profitable through the increase of traffic or other causes. 
 The true value of a railroad, like that of a farm, is what it would sell 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 5 
 
 for. What it would sell for may bear very little relation to what it orig¬ 
 inally cost or what it would cost to reproduce it at the present time. 
 If a railroad enjoys high rates, abundant traffic, and low operating ex¬ 
 penses, the commercial value may greatly exceed the mere physical 
 value of the land which it occupies, the grading, the rails, the rolling 
 stock, and other tangible property. 
 
 The principle of valuing railroads on the commercial basis is quite 
 generally recognized in the tax laws of the various states, in court 
 decisions, and by practically all tax officials, and is uniformly upheld by 
 economists and students of finance. Many other states have provisions 
 like that of North Dakota requiring the assessment of the franchise, 
 or requiring the value of the franchise to be taken into account in de¬ 
 termining the total value of the railroad property. In other states laws 
 require the market value of stocks and bonds to be taken into account 
 or expressly direct other evidences of going commercial value to be 
 considered. 
 
 Where commercial value exceeds physical value detailed valuation of 
 physical property becomes unnecessary. 
 
 It is one of the advantages of a commercial valuation of railroads 
 that it can be made more readily than a physical valuation. Moreover, 
 the great railroad systems lying in North Dakota expressly state in their 
 reports to the State Railroad Commission that they do not know the 
 actual cost of their lines lying in that state. This is in no way remark¬ 
 able as the railroad systems are not built by state lines and construc¬ 
 tion accounts are not kept by state lines. In the absence of records on 
 the original cost the only manner for ascertaining the physical value of 
 the property of railroads lying in the state is by the employment of 
 expert engineers to go over the lines and in the greatest detail calculate 
 the cost of rights of way, grading, bridges, rails, stations, and what not. 
 In states like Michigan and Wisconsin such physical valuations have 
 been attempted and the process has been found exceedingly expensive. 
 
 While the North Dakota statute regarding the taxing of railroads pos¬ 
 sibly implies that there should be separate assessment of the different 
 elements of tangible property and the separate assessment of franchise 
 value, it does not appear to have been the practice of the State Board 
 of Equalization to make such distinction of different elements of value. 
 Since the rate of taxation is the same on all elements of value there 
 seems to be no particular advantage in separating them if a correct 
 total for all elements combined can be ascertained. This correct total 
 in the case of a railroad whose commercial value equals or exceeds the 
 probable physical value is simply commercial value, and having once 
 been ascertained, there is no need of determining those fractions of the 
 total which would require detailed physical valuation. 
 
 A somewhat different question may arise in the case of railroads, if 
 there be any in the state, whose commercial value is less than Its 
 physical value. Something may be said for the principle of assessing 
 such a railroad on the basis of physical value even though it has rela- 
 
6 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 tively little income out of which to pay taxes. The road has the 
 benefit of the services of the state and local governments, a benefit at 
 least equal to the tax rate upon the physical value of the property. 
 However, as there is every reason to believe that the three leading rail¬ 
 roads of the state, the Great Northern, the Northern Pacific, and the 
 Soo Line, have a commercial value at least equal to their physical value, 
 and that the taxation of their commercial value will bring a just and 
 adequate revenue to the state. 
 
 Commercial valuation requires the valuation of the railroad system as 
 a whole. 
 
 It is evident that the true commercial value of a railroad is its value 
 as an entity and that a direct commercial valuation of that part of a 
 railroad which lies within a given state is impossible. It might have 
 been possible for railroads to keep construction accounts in such a way 
 as to determine exactly the original cost of the lines in a given state, 
 though as a matter of fact they have not done so. It might also be pos¬ 
 sible to determine the physical cost of the reproduction of the property 
 of a railroad lying within state boundaries, but the value of a railroad 
 as a going concern is not to be broken up by state lines. It is a unity. 
 All parts of a system co-operate in producing the income which forms 
 the basis of the commercial value. The terminals of the great north¬ 
 western railroads in cities like St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth, are 
 largely engaged in handling grain and other products originating in 
 North Dakota. The freight rate which is paid for shipment from North 
 Dakota to Minneapolis includes indistinguishably the charge for the haul 
 within the state of North Dakota, within the state of Minnesota, and the 
 cost of handling at the terminals, and the profit from the transaction is 
 one unit. 
 
 On this point we may quote from Mr. T. A. Polleys, Tax Commission¬ 
 er of the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway, who said at 
 the National Conference on State and Local Taxation in 1910: “The 
 railway system is the proper unit for the valuation of railway property. 
 It is first necessary to determine the value of a railway as an entirety 
 before it is possible to logically assign a value to that portion of its lines 
 lying within a given state.” (page 247). Many other representatives of 
 railroads, as well as state taxing authorities and students of public 
 finance, might be quoted to the same effect. 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 7 
 
 THE DOUBLE PROBLEM OF RAILROAD ASSESSMENT 
 
 It follows from what has been said that the first task confronting 
 the tax authorities of North Dakota in assessing the railroads is to de¬ 
 termine the value of each railroad system as an entirety. It is obvious, 
 however, that not all of that value is a proper subject for taxation in 
 North Dakota. The second task is to determine a fair method of ap¬ 
 portioning the total value as between North Dakota and other states. 
 We shall first discuss the means of arriving at the commercial value of 
 railroads as systems; second discuss the various principles for the 
 apportionment of that value among states. 
 
8 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 METHODS OF DETERMINING TOTAL VALUE OF RAILROAD 
 
 SYSTEMS 
 
 The valuation must relate to property used for railroad purposes only. 
 
 Whatever method of valuation is adopted for the railroads, it is 
 necessary to distinguish between the value of property actually used for 
 railroad purposes and the value of other property held by the railroad 
 corporations, which in the case of some of these railroads is very large 
 in amount. Such other property, if it lies within the state of North 
 Dakota, will be separately assessed; if it lies outside the state it is not 
 a proper subject for taxation by North Dakota. The most important 
 kind of property owned by these railroad companies other than that used 
 in railroad operation consists of stocks and bonds of other railroad cor¬ 
 porations. For example, the Great Northern and Northern Pacific each 
 own more than $100,000,000 worth (book value) of the stock of the 
 C. B. & Q. R. R., no part of which railroad lies in North Dakota. In all 
 calculations herewith presented the value of such non-railway property 
 has been excluded. 
 
 Probable excess of commercial over physical valuation of the three leading 
 railroads. 
 
 Since there may be some argument in favor of assessing railroads 
 on the basis of physical value if that value exceeds commercial value, \t 
 is desirable, first, to consider the evidence going to show that the com¬ 
 mercial value is the higher. This evidence is only indirect. We might, 
 to be sure, compare the commercial value directly with the book value 
 of assets (excluding non-railway investments) as shown in balance 
 sheets of companies; as a matter of fact, some use is made of this book 
 Value in subsequent calculations. There is no way of knowing, however, 
 that the book value of assets corresponds to the original cost of a rail 
 road and its other assets. It has been very common for American rail¬ 
 roads to over-capitalize—issuing securities in excess, sometimes far in 
 excess, of actual investment. Where this is done, they ordinarily make 
 their balance sheets balance by counting the cost of the road at more 
 than its actual cash cost. Whether this has been the case with the leading 
 railroads of North Dakota, there is no adequate evidence to show, and 
 it is not worth while to enter into such meager evidence as is available. 
 
 Books of the corporations, therefore, can not be relied upon to show 
 * the physical value of their property, nor has there been any complete 
 physical valuation of that property by any public authority. The Inter¬ 
 state Commerce Commission is engaged in valuing the railroads of the 
 United States but has not completed the task. The state of Minnesota 
 has made a physical valuation of the railroads within its boundaries, but 
 this would throw little light upon the value of North Dakota roads. In 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 9 
 
 suits affecting the rates of some of these railroads in the state of Min¬ 
 nesota, evidence was submitted by the representatives of the railroads, 
 purporting to estimate the approximate cost of reproducing the entire 
 systems at the present time. This is referred to more fully later. It 
 was contended by the Railroad Commission of Minnesota that that part 
 of valuations assigned to state of Minnesota was too high and this con¬ 
 tention was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. It will 
 be understood, of course, that railroads have a motive for representing 
 the physical value of their property at a high figure when the question 
 of the reasonableness of rates for freight and passenger traffic is under 
 discussion, though they not infrequently take the opposite course when 
 discussing the value of their property for the purpose of taxation. While 
 the claims of railroads with regard to the physical value of their prop¬ 
 erty are interesting and may properly be given some consideration in 
 assessing them, a more just and more reliable basis will be found in 
 commercial value. 
 
 Indirect evidence that the commercial value of the leading railroads 
 of North Dakota is probably not less and may be materially more than 
 the physical value may be drawn from the statistics regarding the op¬ 
 erating results of these systems as compared with those of railroads in 
 general and other individual railroads. Such comparisons seem to indi¬ 
 cate that the Northern Pacific and Great Northern lines are among the 
 most prosperous in the United States and the Soo Line scarcely less so. 
 These statistics, which are all taken from the official reports of the 
 Interstate Commerce Commission, clearly indicate the desirability of 
 considering something more than the mere cost of construction and 
 equipment in determining the true value of Ndrth Dakota railroads. It 
 should be remarked that all statistics hereinafter presented regarding 
 the railroads of North Dakota, and regarding other railroads relate to 
 the fiscal years ending June 30th. For brevity this fact will not herafter 
 be mentioned but the statistics will be spoken of as for 1912, 1913, 1914, 
 etc., meaning the periods ending June 30th in those respective years. 
 
 Table 1 shows for the years 1912, 1913, 1914, so far as statistics are 
 available, the leading items regarding the operating results of the Great 
 Northern, Northern Pacific, and Soo Railroads in comparison with all the 
 railroads of the United States taken together, with all the railroads of 
 the western section of the country taken together, and with all the railroads 
 of the western section, not including these three railroads, figures for 
 which, of course, constitute a material element in the total. Data are 
 given, not merely for the entire systems of these railroads, but also for 
 that part of each lying in North Dakota, although for reasons hereinafter 
 set forth, (see pages 25-27) some of the data for North Dakota are 
 necessarily less trustworthy, involving, as they do. x important assump¬ 
 tions as regards the apportionment of earnings and expenses among the 
 states. 
 
 This table shows that the gross operating revenues (that is, the total 
 receipts from transportation) per mile of line for the three leading rail- 
 
10 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 roads of North Dakota are somewhat less than for the United States, 
 as a whole. This might be expected from the sparseness of the popula¬ 
 tion in the territory in which they lie, which naturally results in traffic 
 of only moderate density. On the other hand, in each of the three years 
 the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern show greater net operating 
 earnings per mile (excess of receipts over operating expenses) than the 
 United States as a whole. The net earnings of these two roads are in 
 the neighborhood of 40% of their total earnings while for the United 
 States as a whole the net earnings are only about 30% of the gross earn¬ 
 ings. For the Soo Line this ratio is only slightly less favorable than for 
 the other two roads. The reason for the greater net earnings per mile 
 of line on the Northern Pacific and Great Northern as compared with the 
 United States as a whole, is doubtless to be found largely in the excep¬ 
 tionally heavy trainloads hauled. The average freight train load on the 
 Northern Pacific Road is about J greater than the average for the United 
 States as a whole and the average for the Great Northern nearly \ 
 greater. As a result of these heavy train loads, and also of the fact 
 that the average rates for freight per ton per mile are somewhat higher 
 on these roads than in the United States as a whole, it appears that the 
 average freight revenue per train mile is very much higher for these 
 roads. 
 
 Still more striking comparisons may be made between the three 
 leading railroads of North Dakota and the railroads of the western dis¬ 
 trict of the United States exclusive of these three roads. The western 
 district includes all lines west of Lake Michigan and a line extending 
 from Chicago to St. Louis, thence down the Mississippi River. As re¬ 
 gards every item shown comparatively in table, save the one item of the 
 average freight rate per ton per mile, the figures for these two railroads 
 are higher than for the western district exclusive of them. Thus for 
 the year 1913 the operating earnings per mile of line for the Northern 
 Pacific were $4,473. and for the Great Northern $4,272, while for the 
 other roads of the western district taken together, the average was 
 $3,030. In the same year the average freight revenue per train mile 
 on the Northern Pacific was $4.54, and on the Great Northern $4.86 as 
 compared with $3.28 on the remaining roads of the western district— 
 and this, in spite of the fact that the average freight rate per ton per 
 mile is materially lower for the two North Dakota roads than for the 
 others. 
 
 The latter part of Table 1 furnishes another means of judging the 
 relative profitableness of the North Dakota railroads as compared with 
 others. It relates to the payment of dividends on stock. The compari¬ 
 sons are possible only betwen these roads individually and the roads 
 of the United States as a whole as the reports do not distinguish the 
 several districts with respect to dividends. It appears that in the United 
 States, as a whole, only about % of the stock of railroad companies pays 
 dividends at all, while all three of the North Dakota railroads have for 
 many years paid liberal dividends on their entire capital stock. The average 
 rate of dividends on these stocks which pay dividends is approximately the 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 11 
 
 same for the United States, as a whole, as for these railroads, but if the 
 rate of dividends be computed with reference to all stock, including non¬ 
 dividend stock the average is only about % as high for the United States 
 as a whole, as for the Northern Pacific, Great Northern, and Soo lines, 
 namely somewhat over 4% compared with 7%. As pointed out in the 
 note to the table, the normal average dividend on all stock for the United 
 States, as a whole, for 1914, is about 4.2%, the'actually higher percent¬ 
 age paid being due to the distribution of certain assets of the Union Pa¬ 
 cific and the Southern Pacific. 
 
 Table 2 presents somewhat more detailed comparisons between the 
 Great Northern, Northern Pacific and the Soo lines, and the other leading 
 individual railroads of the West. This table includes all important lines of 
 the western district. Inasmuch as the rate of dividends of an individual 
 railroad in a given year may be little indication of its profitableness 
 in that year—dividends often being paid out of surplus, particularly 
 in the last few years—a calculation has been made in this table of the 
 percentage which the “net corporate income” of each company bears to 
 its capital stock, the net corporate income being a different item from 
 the net operating earnings. It takes into account the income from other 
 sources, such as dividends or interest on securities held, but, on the 
 other hand important payments such as the large item of interst on 
 funded debt are deducted. The net income, in other words, is the 
 amount available for distribution to stock holders out of the business of 
 the year. This may be more than the amount of dividends paid, part of 
 the income being carried to surplus, or it may be less than the dividends 
 paid, which may have come in part from the surplus of previous years. 
 
 It is not contended that the ratio of net income to capital stock is a 
 very close index of the profitableness of railroads inasmuch as the capi¬ 
 tal stock is often not an accurate indication of the true investment. 
 Nevertheless, when so many railroads are compared some light as to 
 their relative profitableness can doubtless be drawn from these percent¬ 
 ages. 
 
 This table speaks for itself. Very few of the roads of the western 
 district show operating results in any respect as satisfactory as do the 
 Northern Pacific, Great Northern, and Soo lines. In nearly all cases the 
 average gross earnings and the average net earnings per mile are lower 
 for the other roads than for these three. In nearly all cases the ratio 
 of net to gross earnings is lower. The freight train loads are heavier 
 on the three leading roads of North Dakota than upon almost any other of 
 the roads compared and the freight revenue per train mile is also higher. 
 Finally, there are very few among the many railroads represented which 
 show as high a ratio of net income to capitalization as do the Great 
 Northern, Northern Pacific and Soo Line. The Union Pacific, Southern 
 Pacific and the Santa Fe which operate under conditions very similar 
 to those on the Great Northern and Northern Pacific, show results equal¬ 
 ly favorable, or in some cases more favorable, but these are almost the 
 only exceptions. Especially noteworthy is the comparison between the 
 Great Northern and Northern Pacific lines on the one hand and even 
 
12 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 such great and prosperous railroads as the Chicago & Northwestern and 
 the C., M. & St. P. 
 
 It is obvious from these two tables, therefore, that the leading rail¬ 
 roads of North Dakota are exceptionally prosperous and successful. 
 Even in the absence of any precise information as to the physical value 
 of their properties, there can be little doubt that their earnings repre¬ 
 sent an ample return upon that value, and that their commercial value 
 resulting from the earnings must be fully equal to, if it does not materi¬ 
 ally exceed, the original cost of the lines and equipment, or even the 
 cost of reproduction at the present time which probably exceeds the 
 original cost. To assess the railroads of North Dakota on the basis of 
 any rough estimate of the original cost or even of the cost of reproduc¬ 
 tion, without taking regard to their earning capacity, would clearly be to 
 run the risk of assessing them too lightly. 
 
 Capitalization of net earnings or of total net revenue. 
 
 There are two principal methods available for determining the com¬ 
 mercial value of a railroad system. One is to capitalize its earning 
 capacity and the other to ascertain the market value of its securities. 
 In each case, of course, the valuation should be confined to property 
 used for railroad operation. 
 
 In the capitalization of earning capacity, two questions present them¬ 
 selves: 1. What is the figure of earnings to be capitalized? 2. At what 
 rate percent should they be capitalized? 
 
 1. The most convenient figure of earnings to take for the purpose of 
 capitalization is the item, “Net revenue from railroad operations,” an 
 item which appears in the balance sheet of every railroad and which 
 represents the difference between the gross receipts from transportation 
 and the operating expenses. This figure is convenient because it re¬ 
 quires no analysis of details. Moreover in the case of the Great North¬ 
 ern, Northern Pacific, and the Soo Line, there is no great difference be¬ 
 tween the net revenue from rail operations and the total net revenue 
 taking into account other factors. The net revenue from rail operations 
 of the three leading railroads of North Dakota is shown as the first item 
 of the condensed income account, for the years 1909, 1910 and 1912-14 
 hereinafter presented (Table 11). For the purpose of estimating the 
 present commercial value of these railroads the average net earnings 
 for the three years 1912-14 may best be taken. To take the latest year only 
 would result in undue fluctuations in the assessment. 
 
 Table 3 presents the required items for the calculation for the Great 
 Northern, Northern Pacific, and the Soo Line of the total net revenue 
 for the years 1912-14, which furnishes an alternative basis for valuation. 
 This item may be more precisely described as the revenue available for 
 the payment of taxes and for bondholders and stockholders. All the 
 data for Table 3 have been taken from the income account Table 11. 
 In this calculation there is added to the net revenue from rail opera¬ 
 tions: 1. Net revenue from auxiliary operations (sleeping car and par¬ 
 lor car service); 2. Income from unfunded securities and accounts such 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 1.3 
 
 as interest on cash held in banks and interest on advances to subsidiary 
 companies; 3. Miscellaneous items such as rental for lease of any part 
 of road, receipts for the hire of equipment, and receipts for the use of 
 trackage by other railroads and the like. From this total of revenues is 
 deducted interest payments other than on funded debt (for example, on 
 current accounts due), payment for the use of trackage or of equipment 
 of other railroads, payments for the lease of other railroads, and the 
 like. The resulting figure in the case of the Great Northern and North¬ 
 ern Pacific railroads is slightly greater than the net revenue from rail 
 operations, while in the case of the Soo Line it is somewhat less, owing 
 to the fact that very large rental payment is made for the use of the 
 Wisconsin Central Railroad. As a matter of fact, the rental paid for the 
 lease of the Wisconsin Central consists simply of the net earnings of that 
 part of the system so that virtually the figure of total net revenue given 
 in Table 3-C' for the Soo Line is the revenue from that part of the system 
 which excludes the Wisconsin Central. Consequently, in apportioning 
 to North Dakota its share of this net revenue the trackage or other items 
 of the Wisconsin Central must be left out of account. 
 
 It will be noted that whether the item of net revenue from rail opera¬ 
 tions be taken as the basis for capitalization or the item of total net 
 revenue as above described, the tax payments have in neither case 
 been deducted. In other words, the earnings or income must serve as 
 the fund from which to pay taxes as well as to pay interest on bonds 
 and dividends on stock. This is unquestionably the proper method of 
 handling the earnings for the purpose of valuation as a basis for taxa¬ 
 tion. If the value of the property were to be calculated on the basis 
 of earning capacity after taxes had been paid, the value would vary 
 from time to time and from place to place according to the weight of 
 taxation. If, for any reason the rate of taxation should become extreme¬ 
 ly high, there might be little or nothing left for stock and bond holders, 
 so that the value which they attributed to their property would be very 
 small, and yet the true value of the property would really be precisely 
 the same as if there were no taxation whatever. In other words, the 
 true value of property is entirely independent of the manner in which 
 the earnings of that property are divided between the government and 
 the owners. 
 
 For the sake of completeness, both of the above mentioned methods 
 of calculating earnings or income have been used in this report as a 
 basis for calculating the commercial value of the railroads of North 
 Dakota, but on account of the simplicity of the figure of net revenue from 
 rail operations and the possible questions which might be raised as to 
 the propriety of including certain other items and as to the propriety 
 of some of the deductions, it is suggested that the capitalization of the 
 net revenue from rail operations is the more satisfactory figure. 
 
 2. As regards the rate of percent at which the earning capacity 
 should be capitalized for the purpose of determining the commercial 
 value, it seems to be rather generally agreed among taxing authorities as 
 well as among business men and railroad men that 6 per cent is a fair 
 
14 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 rate. It appears that, as a matter of fact, the present tax upon these 
 North Dakota railroads amounts to about one-sixth of the net earnings 
 from rail operations. (See income account, Table 11). Consequently, 
 the rate of 6 per cent may be taken as representing about one per cent 
 for tax payments and five per cent for the investor. There is no doubt 
 that a safe security which pays five per cent net to the investor on its par 
 value can be sold at par under normal conditions. 
 
 In an address before the International Tax Association in 1910, (Fourth 
 International Conference on State and Local Taxation, page 247), Mr. T. 
 H. Polleys, tax commissioner of the C., St. P., M. & O. Railway, speaks 
 with approval of the practice of capitalizing net earnings at six per cent 
 for the purpose of determining the taxable value of railroads. He says, 
 “The capitalization of the average net earnings for a period of years (gen¬ 
 erally at the rate of six per cent) has been employed in many instances 
 as an aid in the determination of system values.” 
 
 A fuller extract of Mr. Polley’s statement is as follows: 
 
 “(1). The railway system is the proper unit for the valuation of rail¬ 
 way operating property. It is first necessary to determine the value of 
 a railway as an entirety before it is possible to logically assign a value 
 to that portion of its lines lying within a given state. Various sources 
 of information are available for the determination of system railroad 
 valuations. The stock and bond plan continues to be used to a greater 
 or less extent in many states. When extended over a reasonable period 
 of time, and when proper allowance is made for the fact that stock and 
 bond quotations represent all the corporate assets of a railroad company, 
 and not merely the operating property, which alone is taxable against it 
 under an ad valorem law, there seems to be no good reason for rejecting 
 from consideration the net value of operating property indicated by such 
 quotations. Capitalization of average net earnings for a period of years 
 (usually at the rate of 6 per cent) has been employed in many instances 
 as an aid in the determination of system values. It should be kept in 
 mind that the railroad net earnings reported to the Interstate Commerce 
 Commission under the accounting rules in force since July 1, 1907, are 
 entitled to far greater consideration, as an indication of value, than are 
 the net earnings reported prior to that time. The appraisals of physical 
 railroad property on the basis of cost of reproduction furnish a body 
 of information, now rapidly increasing, relative to the value of railroads, 
 viewed from still another standpoint. A composite system value reflect¬ 
 ing simultaneously stock and bond quotations, capitalization of net earn 
 ings, and cost of reproduction new would doubtless be more reliable than 
 a value based solely upon one of these lines of information. In comput¬ 
 ing railroad values, it is always convenient and desirable, for comparative 
 purposes, to reduce them to an average value per mile.” 
 
 It would be useles to go into an elaborate discussion of the proper rate 
 of capitalization. Studies have frequently been made on the average rate 
 of return on invesments of differnt classes. By comparing the rate of 
 interest on bonds with the market prices for bonds, and the rate of divi- 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 15 
 
 dends on stocks with the market prices of stocks, in the latter case taking 
 account also of the earnings not paid out as dividends, but which enhance 
 value of stockholders’ interests, and in other ways, figures of average 
 net return are reached. However, the average net return on an invest¬ 
 ment differs materially under different conditions and there can be no 
 single standard. Naturally the return is lower for absolutely safe bonds, 
 such as government bonds, or prior lien bonds of the best railroads, than 
 for less safe securities. Changes in the purchasing power of money as 
 affected by tlje supply of gold and other causes bring about variations 
 from time to time in the prices investors consider justified for securities, 
 having a given rate of return on par. Changes in the general business 
 prosperity and in the degree of confidence of investors, changes in the 
 direction and amount of demand for available capital, and many other 
 factors affect the prices of securities, or, in other words, affect the average 
 rate of return on the amount actually paid for securities. Just now the 
 great European war has disturbed financial conditions and has made 
 prices of securities lower than usual. 
 
 State taxing authorities can not every year undertake an elaborate in¬ 
 vestigation of market conditions with a view to readjusting the rate at 
 which they will capitalize net earnings in calculating values for purposes 
 of taxation. The assessment of property in general is, now and probably 
 always will be a somewhat rough matter. Ideal justice is not and can¬ 
 not be secured. It is better, if capitalized net earnings are to be taken 
 as a basis for the valuation of railroad or any other property, to use a cus¬ 
 tomary and more or less unchanging rate for capitalization. Should there 
 occur what appeared to be a fairly permanent change either upward or 
 downward in the average rate of return on typical investments, the state 
 government might be justified in adopting a new rate for capitalizing 
 earnings. 
 
 That the rate of six per cent representing substantially five per cent 
 return for the investor is a fair basis, if there were need of special argu¬ 
 ments in defense of the rate of six per cent as a basis for capitalization 
 in the case of these railroads, might be substantiated by calling attention 
 to the fact that each of the three leading roads, the Great Northern, 
 Northern Pacific and Soo Line, has large amounts of bonds outstanding 
 which bear less than five per cent interest. In fact, the average rate of 
 all the bonds of these railroads is but little over four per cent. Without 
 going into an elaborate investigation, it is impossible tc say at just what 
 prices these bonds were originally sold or what prices they now command, 
 but it is safe to say that the four per cent bonds of railroads as prosper¬ 
 ous as these have in general been worth approximately par. 
 
 Of course, the stocks of these roads sell at prices which net the in¬ 
 vestor somewhat more than four per cent, although some years ago before 
 the agitation with regard to the possible effects of government regulation 
 upon earnings, and before the present war, the prices of their securities 
 ran up so high, that the dividends amounted to little over four per cent 
 of the market price. In view of the fact that a large part of the capital 
 of these railroads is represented by bonds, it would obviously not be fair 
 
16 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 to take as a rate for capitalization a figure based on the relation of the 
 market price of stocks only to the dividends or profits of the stock holder. 
 
 Table 7 which summarizes the different methods of valuation shows 
 the capitalization of net revenue from rail operations at six per cent for 
 each of these three railroads and also capitalization at six per cent of 
 total net revenue calculated in manner above described. It will be noted 
 that taking the average for the three years 1912-14, the capitalization of 
 the net revenue from rail operations gives for the Great Northern, as a 
 whole, a value of $501,656 100, for the Northern Pacific, $446,339,000, and 
 for the Soo Line including the Wisconsin Central, $184,097,183. The 
 capitalization of the total net revenue available for taxes and for stock 
 holders and bond holders gives for the Great Northern a value of $513,- 
 830,050, for the Northern Pacific $493,679,550, and for the Soo Line, ex¬ 
 clusive of the Wisconsin Central, $130 610,000. 
 
 Market Value of Securities as a Basis for Valuation. 
 
 There are two objections to using the market value of securities as a 
 basis for the determination of the commercial value of the railroads of 
 North Dakota. The first objection lies in the difficulty of determining 
 what part of the total value of the securities is attributable to non-railway 
 property. The second difficulty lies in the disturbed financial conditions 
 of recent years which have tended to make the market prices of railroad 
 stocks less than under normal conditions their earning capacity would 
 justify. 
 
 It is easy enough to ascertain the market prices for a series of years 
 of stocks of a North Dakota railroad. In view of the large number of 
 separate bond issues which each road has, bearing different rates of in¬ 
 terest, and in view of the incompleteness of bond quotations, it is almost 
 impossible to arrive at the precise market value of the bonds of these 
 roads, but to place the average market value at par would not be far 
 from correct. It is evident, however, that when the market price of 
 securities is multiplied into the number of shares and bonds we obtain a 
 total which represents more than the market valuation of the railroad 
 operating property. As already pointed out, these railroads own much 
 other property especially the stocks and bonds of other railroads. It is 
 impossible to determine with any approach to accuracy what part of the 
 total market value of the securities is represented by such non-railway 
 property. One cannot know how buyers of the securities of the Great 
 Northern Railroad, for example, estimate the value of its holdings in the 
 Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railroad, which amounts to many millions of 
 dollars. One cannot establish what would be the amount at par or the 
 market value of the securities of the Great Northern if it had no such out¬ 
 side investments. 
 
 The only procedure available for excluding outside investments from 
 the commercial valuation based upon the market prices of securities is 
 to deduct from the total the book values of these outside investments as 
 carried in the balance sheets of the railroads. For example, one can 
 deduct in the case of the Great Northern the book value assigned to the 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 17 
 
 stocks and bonds of the Spokane, Portland & Seattle. There is no way of 
 knowing, however, whether this book value represents either the actual 
 investment of the Great Northern, or the market value of those securities, 
 or the value which the investing public in buying the securities of the 
 Great Northern assigns to these holdings. It is certain that in the case 
 of both the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific the book value as¬ 
 signed to the securities held in other corporations is materially greater 
 than the capitalization at six per cent, or any other reasonable rate, of the 
 present earning capacity of these securities. Large blocks of stocks held 
 by them have at present no dividends. This is true of the stock of the 
 Spokane, Portland & Seattle. It is undoubtedly safe to assume that the 
 book value of the outside investments of all three of these railroads, and 
 particularly of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific, materially exceed 
 their commercial value at the present time, and that deducting this book 
 value from the market value of the securities of these roads leaves an 
 amount as representing the railway property itself, materially less than 
 its true market value as judged by the investors. However, in the ab¬ 
 sence of any other method of procedure deductions have been made in 
 this manner. 
 
 Tables 4 and 5 contain the material and show the results of a valua¬ 
 tion of the three leading railroads on the basis of the market values of 
 securities. Table 4 shows the market price of stocks of each railroad by 
 months for the fiscal years 1912, 1913, and 1914, together with averages. 
 Table 5 shows the par amount of the stocks and bonds of each railroad, 
 the market value on the basis of the market prices of stocks and on the 
 assumption that the bonds are worth par, and the various items or deduc¬ 
 tions which have been made as representing outside investments. The 
 items upon which Table 5 is based will be found in the general balance 
 sheets of railroads constituting Table 12. 
 
 It will be seen that this method of valuation gives for the Great 
 Northern a net commercial value, based on the averages of 1912-14, of 
 $367,517,805; for the Northern Pacific, $408,929,106; and for the Soo Line, 
 not including the Wisconsin Central. $115,486,516. 
 
 It is noteworthy that the market value of the securities of these rail¬ 
 roads as given above is materially less than the capitalization of their net 
 earnings from rail operations at six per cent. This difference is partly 
 due doubtless to the fact already pointed out that an excessive amount 
 has probably been deducted from the value of securities as representing 
 the outside investment of these railroads. However, even if these deduc¬ 
 tions had been materially smaller there still would have been considerable 
 difference between the valuation based on market prices and the valua¬ 
 tion based on capitalization of net earnings. 
 
 The explanation appears to be found in the fact that investors in the 
 last few years have not attributed to railroad stocks as high a value as 
 might normally be expected from the earning capacity of railroads. To 
 some extent prices of all securities have been depressed in recent years, 
 including even bonds of national, state, and local governments. 
 Even more, relatively, have the prices of railroad stocks declined. Part 
 
18 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 of this decline has, in the case of some of the railroads, been justified by 
 actual decline in net earnings due to increased operating expenses. Part 
 of it, however, has been due merely to timidity on the part of investors. 
 They have feared that the control of rates by the Interstate Commerce 
 Commission and by the state authorities might in the future result in a 
 material decline in earning capacity. Consequently, they have not been 
 disposed to pay for railroad stock prices which the current earnings and 
 dividends would justify. 
 
 The statistics published by the Interstate Commerce Commission show 
 that the railroads of most parts of the country have fared relatively worse 
 during recent years than those of the Northwest. Most of the railroads 
 have shown less increase in volume of traffic and greater increase in 
 operating expenses than have the Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and 
 Soo Line. As shown by Table 13, the net earnings per mile of line of these 
 leading railroads of North Dakota have kept up exceedingly well, and in 
 the case of the Great Northern and Soo Line, they were materially higher 
 in 1913. than in 1909, 1910, or 1912, the figures for 1911 not being available, 
 and even the figures of 1914 are higher than for 1909. In the case of the 
 Northern Pacific there has been some decline in net earnings per mile 
 of line during more recent years but not as much as for the railroads of 
 the United States, as a whole. 
 
 Investors, however, are greatly influenced by general sentiment and 
 underlying feelings. A justified depreciation in the price of stocks of one 
 railroad will drag down somewhat the price of stocks of another where no 
 such inherent conditions exist. There is little reason to doubt that the 
 market prices of the stocks of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific 
 and, probably, also of the Soo Line have been relatively lower in the last 
 two or three years than the prices of the stocks of many of the eastern 
 railroads when the earning capacity is given due weight. 
 
 For these reasons it is believed that the capitalization at six per cent 
 of the net earnings of these northwestern railroads more nearly equals 
 their true normal value than the current market prices of their securities. 
 However, in case it should be deemed by the Tax Commission more satis¬ 
 factory to take an average of these two valuations, such an average has 
 been computed in Table 8. 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 19 
 
 THE CLAIMS OF RAILROADS AS TO THE COST OF REPRODUCTION 
 
 As already stated, there is no satisfactory information as to the 
 original cost of these railroads and as to the cost of reproducing them, 
 and even if such information existed, it would not be a true guide to the 
 taxable value of railroad property, at least in case it proved to be less 
 than commercial value. However, it is perhaps worth while to present 
 such information as is available regarding the cost of these properties and 
 the cost of reproducing them. The balance sheets of the several railroads 
 of course purport to show a value for the various elements of their prop¬ 
 erty. This is ordinarily known as the book value and presumably repre¬ 
 sents not less than the actual amount of money invested and may repre¬ 
 sent more. 
 
 The assets used in connection with railway operations consist chiefly, 
 of course, of the road itself, and its equipment, but besides, there are 
 current assets such as cash, accounts receivable, and the like. These 
 current assets are just as truly a part of the value of the property as the 
 fixed plant.' No regard of course should be given for purposes of this 
 report to the value of outside investments. Table 6 shows for each rail¬ 
 road the various items taken from the balance sheets as representing 
 the property used in railroad operation. A comparison with the balance 
 sheets themselves (Table 12) will readily show which items have been 
 omitted as not connected with railway operation. It will be seen that the 
 book value in the case of the Great Northern for the year 1914 was $423,- 
 174,930; for the Northern Pacific, $502,141,125, and for the Soo Line, 
 $124,156,856. In comparing these figures with the commercial valuations 
 above presented it should be borne in mind that the commercial valuations 
 are based on the averages for the three years, 1912-14. It seems necessary 
 to take such averages because of the variations from time to time in the 
 earnings of the roads and in the market prices of their securities. On the 
 other hand, the actual investment of the railroad companies is, of course, 
 constantly increasing with extensions and improvements, and if it were 
 possible or desirable to use actual investment as the basis for taxation, 
 one should, of course, take the investment at the latest possible date. If 
 these figures were to be accepted as trustworthy records of actual invest¬ 
 ment of railroads, they would show that their net earnings represent not 
 very much more than the normal rate of return on safe investments; in 
 other words, these valuations are not greatly below the capitalized net 
 earnings as shown in Table 7. 
 
 While there are, doubtless, many who believe that the book value of 
 the property, particularly the road and equipment, of these railroads 
 represents more than actual investment in them, it is worth noting that 
 
20 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 the railroad companies themselves contend vigorously that to reproduce 
 their properties at the present time would cost much more than these 
 amounts. This contention, to be sure, is put forward in connection with 
 freight and passenger rate cases and not in connection with assessments 
 for taxation. As long ago as 1908, when the State of Minnesota was under¬ 
 taking to reduce the railroad rates, engineers and experts representing 
 the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railroads presented estimates 
 of the cost of reproducing their properties, as a whole, which greatly 
 exceeded §ven the present book values, which are in turn materially 
 higher than the book values of 1908. The following quotation taken from 
 the report of Charles E. Otis, special Master in Equity in the case of 
 Shepherd vs. Northern Pacific Railway, (other cases also being involved), 
 is interesting, if not, perhaps, very informing. It will be seen from the quo¬ 
 tation that the railroads claimed a value excluding the outside investments 
 of $486,738! 161 in the case of the Northern Pacific, and of $518,206,215 in 
 the case of the Great Northern. The quotation also shows the estimate 
 of the Master in Chancery, himself, wherein he reduces these amounts 
 claimed by the railroads somewhat. It may be noted that the Supreme 
 Court of the United States held that even in the values calculated by the 
 Master, there was an excess, 'the amount of such excess, however, not 
 being estimated by the Court. 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 21 
 
 EXTRACT FROM REPORT OF CHARLES E. OTIS, MASTER IN EQUITY 
 
 XIII—Valuations of Entire System 
 
 “Complainants have offered considerable testimony for the purpose of 
 establishing value of the physical properties of the whole system, both in 
 the Northern Pacific and Great Northern cases, and they ask a finding of 
 such valuation. 
 
 “The State has confined its testimony as to value of such physical prop¬ 
 erties only as are in Minnesota. The Master does not consider a finding 
 in the matter at all necessary in determining the controversies submitted 
 to him, but as such finding is desired by complainants he concludes to 
 
 make it. 
 
 “In the Northern Pacific case there was testimony to the effect that 
 the cost of reproduction of the physical properties of the entire system 
 would amount to the sum of $526,779,016. This includes $28,913,981 for 
 the Spokane, Portland & Seattle road, one-half of which is owned by the 
 Northern Pacific Company and one-half by the Great Northern Company, 
 the amount so taken being one-half of such cost. This road was, at the 
 time evidence was submitted, under construction, did no commercial busi¬ 
 ness, earned no revenue, and until completion could form no part of the 
 operating system. When completed its cost of reproduction will be en¬ 
 hanced by interest during construction and until then it forms no part 
 of rate making valuation. It is not included in the track mileage of the 
 system hereinbefore found to amount to 7,695.80 miles. 
 
 “There is also included in complainants’ estimate the further sum of 
 $4,116,874 for the Minnesota & International and the Big Forks and Inter¬ 
 national roadst, which, for reasons before given, must be deducted. 
 
 “There has also been so included the further sum of $7,000,000 for lines 
 in Manitoba which are under leases and form no part of the company’s 
 operating system. 
 
 “Eliminating these items leaves a balance of $486,738,161. 
 
 “Assuming as we may that there should be at least the same per cent 
 reduction for the whole system as it has been found necessary to make in 
 Minnesota (which after deducting as here for the Minnesota & Interna¬ 
 tional and the Big Forks & International Falls lines were substantially 
 seven per cent), the valuation amounts to $452,666,489, and upon the testi¬ 
 mony produced the cost of reproduction is found to amount to this sum. 
 
 “In the Great Northern case, there was testimony to the effect that 
 cost of reproduction of the entire system would amount to $549,253,317. 
 
22 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 Deducting for its interest in the Spokane, Portland & Seattle line $21,- 
 827' 521 and for lines under construction $8,219,581, leaves a balance of 
 $518,206,215. 
 
 “Assuming, as in the Northern Pacific case, that there should be the 
 same per cent of reduction for the whole system as it has been necessary 
 to make in Minnesota, and which is substantially 12 per cent, the valua¬ 
 tion amounts to the sum of $457,121,469, and upon the testimony before 
 the Master the cost of reproduction of the whole system is found to 
 amount to this sum.” 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 23 
 
 METHODS OF DETERMINING NORTH DAKOTA’S SHARE OF 
 SYSTEM VALUATIONS 
 
 Variety of possible methods. 
 
 Having determined the commercial valuation of the railroad systems, 
 as a whole, it remains to fix upon a just and satisfactory method of assign¬ 
 ing to North Dakota its share of the total valuation. There are many 
 possible ways of making such apportionment. One may determine what 
 proportion the mileage of line in North Dakota forms to the total mileage, 
 disregarding the fact that some parts of the line are double tracked and 
 others not. and disregarding the sidings, yard tracks, and the like. Again, 
 the apportionment may be made on the basis of trackage, giving to a mile 
 of switch track as much weight as to a mile of main line track. The ad¬ 
 vantage of either of these methods is that the figures are perfectly definite 
 and involve no assumptions or estimates. 
 
 Other methods of apportionment have to do with operations of the 
 road. Thus we might apportion according to car mileage of freight and 
 passenger cars combined, or according to some combination of freight ton 
 mileage with passenger mileage. The use of these methods, however, 
 would be practically without precedent. 
 
 Finally, one may apportion valuation among states according to gross 
 earnings or according to net earnings. 
 
 Of these possible methods three have been selected and applied in this 
 report, namely: apportionment according to line mileage, according to 
 gross earnings, and according to net earnings. Averages are also present¬ 
 ed using these three methods combined (Table 7) and other averages 
 using a combination of line mileage and gross earnings only (Table 8). 
 
 Apportionment according to mileage of line. 
 
 In the case of these northwestern railroads, none of which have a great 
 deal of double track, and whose mileage of sidings and yard trackage is 
 relatively less than in the case of some of the eastern railroads, an ex¬ 
 amination of the report shows that there would be no great difference be¬ 
 tween North Dakota’s share of valuation if based on line mileage and if 
 based on all-track mileage. Line mileage is much more commonly used 
 by the taxing authorities of other states than all-track mileage and it has 
 been deemed preferable to make computations only on basis of line mile¬ 
 age. 
 
 It is so common throughout the country for state taxing authorities 
 in valuing railroads to determine shares of system valuations for their 
 particular states by the proportion which line mileage within the state 
 bears to total line mileage that at first thought there would seem no reason 
 for not adopting this method in North Dakota. The system has the sup- 
 
24 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 port not only of the practice of taxing authorities but of state and federal 
 courts including the Supreme Court of the United States. In some states 
 the statutes expressly provide for the use of this method. 
 
 Where a railroad system runs through states of more or less equally 
 distributed population and where all parts of its systems are more or 
 less equally utilized, apportionment according to line mileage is not 
 merely convenient but essentially Just. It would give very much the 
 same results as apportionment according either to gross earnings or net 
 earnings. But in the case of these northwestern railroads there is a very 
 great difference between the results of apportionment according to line 
 mileage (or all-track mileage either) and apportionment according either 
 to gross or to net earnings. The amount of traffic per mile of line in 
 North Dakota is materially less than in some other states through which 
 these same railroads run. and materially less than the averages for the 
 systems, as a whole. There are in this state many miles of branch lines 
 tapping the grain fields whose traffic, except immediately after harvest, 
 is naturally light. North Dakota contrasts with Minnesota in having a 
 much sparser population. On the other hand, it contrasts with Montana 
 in that a large portion of the total trackage of the Great Northern and 
 Northern Pacific in Montana consists of through lines reaching across the 
 state and carrying traffic from the Pacific Coast to the East, there being 
 far less mileage of local branch lines than in North Dakota. In view of 
 these considerations, it would be scarcely just for the Tax Commission 
 of North Dakota to insist upon an apportionment of the valuation of 
 these railroads in that state according to line mileage alone. 
 
 Table 7 shows the proportion which the line mileage of each of these 
 railroads in North Dakota forms of its mileage and presents calculations 
 of North Dakota’s share of the several methods of valuation on the line 
 mileage basis of apportionment. 
 
 It should be stated that there are various ways of calculating even the 
 simple item of line mileage. Table 10, dealing with the mileage statistics 
 shows the various classes of line owned or operated by each railroad. 
 Part of the line owned by a railroad may not be operated by it at all, 
 but leased to some other road. In the case of none of these railroads is 
 all of the line operated owned by the operating company. Some is operat¬ 
 ed under lease from other roads or under contract, some is operated jointly 
 with other roads under what are called trackage rights. 
 
 On the whole, in view of the fact, that the commercial value of a rail¬ 
 road is based not so much on what it owns as on the income derived from 
 what it operates, it seems most just to use the total mileage operated for 
 the entire system and the total mileage operated in North Dakota as a 
 basis for the apportionment of the valuation. 
 
 The annual reports of these railroad companies show not merely the 
 mileage in operation at the end of the year covered by the report, but also 
 the average mileage operated during the year which is usually somewhat 
 less than the mileage at the end of the year. Inasmuch as most of the com¬ 
 putations of averages per mile of line such as the average gross earnings 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 25 
 
 per mile of line or the average net earnings per mile of line are based 
 upon the average mileage operated during the year, it has been deemed 
 preferable to use the average mileage operated during the year as a 
 basis for the figures in these computations. It may be noted that in the 
 case of the Northern Pacific there is quite a difference between the figure 
 given for the average mileage operated during the year and that given 
 for the mileage operated at the end of the year, this difference being due 
 to the fact that in the former spur tracks to industries are not counted 
 as line mileage at all while in the latter they are counted. 
 
 Apportionment according to gross earnings. 
 
 The method of apportioning total value of a railroad system among 
 the states according to gross earnings is the only method which is at all 
 commonly used except that according to line or track mileage and it is 
 used much less commonly than the mileage method. 
 
 Railroad accounting officers are in the habit of distinguishing their 
 gross earnings by states and have adopted standard rules of procedure 
 for doing so. Since a very large proportion of the entire business of most 
 railroads is interstate, it becomes necessary to make a division between 
 the several states as regards earnings from such interstate business. It 
 would not be at all satisfactory merely to determine how much money 
 is actually collected within the confines of each state. It is customary 
 in the case of an interstate shipment to distribute the total revenue ac¬ 
 cording to the number of miles hauled within each state. For example, 
 if a shipment of wheat moves from North Dakota to Minneapolis passing 
 100 miles through North Dakota and 200 miles through Minnesota, one 
 third of the receipts would be credited to North Dakota. It will be ob¬ 
 served that this method of dividing gross earnings involves a decidedly 
 important assumption, namely the assumption that earnings are properly 
 distributed according to distance hauled. One might raise the question 
 whether a haul of a given distance under certain conditions in one state 
 ought not to be counted as earning relatively more per mile than a haul 
 of the same distance in another state. However, there is no other way 
 of apportioning gross earnings in actual use and the only figures available 
 to show gross earnings of these railroads in North Dakota are those in 
 which this method of apportionment has been used by the railroads. 
 
 Table 7 shows the gross earnings of each of the three leading rail¬ 
 roads of North Dakota for the system, as a whole, and for the state, to¬ 
 gether with the proportion for the state. It also shows the amount which 
 the value of these railroads, according to various methods of valuation, 
 for the state of North Dakota would be on the basis of apportionment 
 according to gross earnings. It will be observed that North Dakota's 
 share of the valuation in the case of each of the railroads is very much 
 lower on the basis of gross earnings than on the basis of line mileage 
 and also much lower than the proportion on the basis of net revenue here¬ 
 after discussed. For example, in the case of the Great Northern on the 
 basis of the average for the three years 1912-14 the line mileage in North 
 Dakota constituted 22.65% of the total line mileage while the gross rail 
 
26 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 operating revenues in North Dakota constituted only 17.47% of the total. 
 The explanation, of course, is obvious. Traffic in North Dakota is lighter 
 per mile of line than in some of the other states through which these rail¬ 
 roads run. 
 
 It is a question, however, whether one would be justified in using 
 gross earnings as a basis for apportionment without modification. It may 
 readily be that in the case of some of the branch lines in North Dakota, 
 especially newer lines, the earning capacity at present is less than a fair 
 return on the actual investment. These lines have been constructed in 
 some cases, with a view to the more or less distant future and to the 
 development of a new country. If there could be such a thing as separate 
 commercial valuation of every individual branch, it might be found that 
 a good many of the branches have a commercial value less than the orig¬ 
 inal cost or the cost of reproducing them. In such a case the state would 
 doubtless be justified in assessing these lines on the basis of cost rather 
 than of commercial value. It follows that in apportioning the total com¬ 
 mercial valuation between North Dakota and other states, some weight 
 might properly be given to the mileage basis where that gives a larger 
 share to North Dakota than the gross earnings basis. On the whole the 
 average of the apportionment according to gross earnings and apportion¬ 
 ment according to line mileage would seem to be about as nearly just a 
 basis for valuing these roads in North Dakota as any that could be devis¬ 
 ed. In this connection it may be noted that Mr. T. A. Polleys of the 
 Omaha road, whose paper on railroad taxation has already been quoted, 
 says in the same paper, page 250, “Personally I am convinced that a 
 distribution on a composite basis which gives equal effect both to all track 
 mileage and to gross earnings, meets the widely varying conditions of the 
 problem much more satisfactorily than does a distribution on either basis 
 singly.” Since, as already stated, there is in the case of these railroads 
 no very great difference between distribution according to all track mile¬ 
 age and distribution according to the line mileage, the above suggested 
 average conforms very closely to what Mr. Polleys, a recognized authority, 
 from the railroad point of view, considers a fair method of apportionment. 
 
 Apportionment according to net earnings. 
 
 The most just method of apportioning the commercial value of railroad 
 property among the states would be according to the net earnings within 
 each state. It would be particularly appropriate, where the commercial 
 value of the entire system is calculated by capitalizing the net earnings, 
 to use the net earnings by states as a basis for distribution. In fact, this 
 would substantially amount to capitalizing directly the net earnings 
 within a given state in order to determine the commercial value in that 
 state. 
 
 The objection to this system lies in the fact that there are no generally 
 recognized principles for ascertaining the net earnings of a railroad within 
 any given state, that is, in the case of railroads which extend into two or 
 more states. Net earnings, of course, represent the difference between 
 gross earnings and operating expenses. Aside from the assumption al- 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 :7 
 
 ready discussed by which gross earnings are apportioned among the states 
 there must be many other assumptions regarding apportionment of op¬ 
 erating expenses among the states before the net earnings by states can 
 be calculated. Some of the expenses of the interstate railroad are, of 
 course, clearly localized, but many others are not. Those expenses which 
 are general to two or more states or to the entire system have to be dis¬ 
 tributed according to some more or less arbitrary method. 
 
 Some of the railroads of the country do not undertake to distribute 
 their operating expenses by states or to arrive at the net earnings by 
 states. In other cases they do so, but protest that the methods involved 
 in apportioning expenses are unsatisfactory. These particular railroads 
 which operate in North Dakota do undertake to segregate expenses within 
 the state and to calculate the net earnings within the state. Reports filed 
 annually by them with the North Dakota Railroad and Warehouse Com¬ 
 mission contain these figures. Doubtless the railroads have used the best 
 judgment of their expert accountants in making the distribution and the 
 figures presumably conform as nearly to the truth as could in any way 
 be expected. Probably no serious injustice would be done to any of these 
 railroads if their figures for net earnings within the state were taken as 
 a basis for determining North Dakota’s share of their total system valua¬ 
 tion. However, if any of these railroad companies should object to such 
 method of apportionment they could bring forward plausible arguments 
 to show at least the possibility of disparity between the true net earnings 
 in the state and those calculated according to methods of their own ac¬ 
 countants. In Wisconsin and some other states where this same problem 
 has confronted the taxing officials, the representatives of the railroads 
 have objected to any attempt to calculate net earnings within the state 
 for purposes of apportioning assessments. 
 
 If the taxing authorities of North Dakota are convinced that the figures 
 for net earnings in North Dakota, as reported by these railroads, are as 
 nearly trustworthy as human ingenuity can make them, and are prepared 
 to reply to any criticism they may meet of their validity, the use of these 
 figures for determining North Dakota’s share of the valuation of these 
 roads would be eminently satisfactory. 
 
 Table 13 shows for the Great Northern, Northern Pacific and Soo Line, 
 respectively, the total net earnings, net earnings within the state of North 
 Dakota as reported by the railroads themselves, and North Dakota’s per¬ 
 centage of the total. It also shows North Dakota’s share of the valuation of 
 the roads according to the various methods on the basis of these per¬ 
 centages. 
 
 It will be observed that the percentage which the net earnings reported 
 for North Dakota forms of the total net earnings is about equal to the 
 mean, in the case of each railroad, between the percentage of line mile¬ 
 age in North Dakota, and the percentage of gross earnings in North Da¬ 
 kota. Consequently, if the apportionment to North Dakota be based upon 
 the mean between the mileage percentage and the gross earnings per¬ 
 centage, the result would be approximately the same as if the apportion¬ 
 ment had been according to the reported net earnings. 
 
28 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 Whatever doubt there may be as regards the details of the methods of ap¬ 
 portioning operating expenses and consequently of arriving at net earnings 
 by states, it is probably a fact that North Dakota’s share of the net earn¬ 
 ings of these railroads is really somewhat larger than its share of their 
 gross earnings. In other words, it is probably true that the operating 
 expenses are relatively lower in North Dakota than in most of the other 
 states through which these railroads operate. According to the method of 
 apportioning expenses by the railroads, it appears that in the case of the 
 Great Northern, for the years 1912-14 taken together, the operating ex¬ 
 penses form 59% of the operating revenues for the system, as a whole, 
 while for North Dakota they form only 52.3% (Table 13). A similar differ¬ 
 ence appears in the case of the Northern Pacific and a smaller difference in 
 the case of the Soo Line. The level territory of North Dakota, the compara¬ 
 tively low price of fuel, and the generally favorable operating conditions,, 
 may readily bring it about that the operating expenses should form a 
 smaller proportion of earnings in that state than for the systems as a 
 whole. Just so far as this is the case, just so far, in other words, as North 
 Dakota’s share of net earnings exceeds its share of gross earnings, the 
 state is justified in claiming a greater share of the total valuation than 
 would result from the use of gross earnings as a basis of apportionment. 
 It may be observed further that this problem of the net earnings within 
 the state is directly dependent upon the problem of gross earnings within 
 the state which has already been discussed. 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 29 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 All the data bearing upon the commercial valuation of the railroads of 
 North Dakota are summarized in tables 7, 8 and 9. Table 7 shows for each 
 railroad the valuation according to each of the three methods of valuing 
 the entire system and the distribution of each total to North Dakota ac¬ 
 cording to each of the three methods of distribution. There is also shown 
 for each of the three valuations of the entire system the share which 
 would accrue to North Dakota if the distribution were made on the basis 
 of an average of North Dakota’s share of mileage, gross operating earn¬ 
 ings, and net operating earnings. Similarly, there is shown an average 
 valuation of the entire system which combines the three separate valua¬ 
 tions, together with a distribution of this average according to each of the 
 three methods of apportionment and according to a combination 
 of the three methods. This last figure of all, in other words, is a 
 general average of all the figures. It amounts in the case of the Great 
 Northern to $92907,133; in the case of the Northern Pacific to $84,067,002, 
 and in the case of the Soo Line to $44,892,564. 
 
 If all the methods of valuation and of apportionment were of equal 
 utility and fairness this general average of all combined might be taken 
 as the truest index of the commercial value of these roads in North Da¬ 
 kota. Reasons have been advanced, however, for preferring certain meth¬ 
 ods of valuation and of apportionment to others. Table 8 selects from 
 Table 7 those figures which are probably, on the whole, to be considered as 
 most significant. 
 
 It has been shown above that the capitalization of the net earnings from 
 rail operations at 6% is, in all probability, a truer measure of the commer¬ 
 cial value of these railroads as systems than any other. It has been shown 
 further that a combination of line mileage with gross earnings furnishes 
 a satisfactory basis for the apportionment of North Dakota’s share of the 
 system value. Table 8 shows the share of the capitalization value ac¬ 
 cruing to North Dakota on the basis of this double method of distribution. 
 North Dakota’s share of the value of the Great Northern as thus cum- 
 puted is found to be $100,632,214; of the Northern Pacific $84,960,620; and 
 of the Soo Line $44 725,478. These are the figures which the writer of 
 this report recommends as a basis for the assessment of the railroads of 
 the state. 
 
 For reasons already suggested, it is not considered that the market 
 value of the stocks and bonds of these railroads, after deducting the book 
 value of outside investments, represents their full normal commercial 
 value. If any departure is made from the principle of assessing on the 
 basis of capitalization of net earnings, it should go no further than to adopt 
 the mean between the capitalization of net earnings and the market value 
 of securities. Table 8 shows what would be the valuation for North Da¬ 
 kota if the value of the entire system were taken as such a mean and if 
 North Dakota’s share were computed by a combination of the mileage 
 method and the gross earnings method. 
 
TABLE 1 
 
 30 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 t- LO 1C 
 
 o o »a 
 
 O OO LA 
 
 < Z 
 
 LU cc 
 
 cr lu 
 o i- 
 co 
 
 o u 
 
 il ^ 
 
 o LU 
 
 < I 
 
 Q- h 
 
 z 
 
 tr 
 
 LU 
 i 
 i- 
 QC 
 O 
 z 
 
 cc 
 
 o 
 
 I o 
 
 I £ 
 
 o £ 
 o .5 
 “ 1-3 
 
 s l 
 
 o d 
 
 Z 
 
 O £ 
 
 o .5 
 
 °S 
 
 o d 
 £ 
 
 Ld § 
 
 jo 
 
 z z 
 
 <D # 
 
 Sm 
 
 £ CQ 
 
 I & 
 
 O 05 05 
 
 t- ^ LA 
 w CO o 
 
 CO LA CO 
 OO CO 00 
 H 00 00 
 
 LA O rH 
 H CO CO 
 03 T»< 
 
 oq co oq 
 
 LA LA cq 
 05 O ^ 
 
 LA CO O 
 00 05 00 
 
 t- o t- 
 cq h co 
 
 LA CO 00 
 O rH O 
 
 00 LA LA 
 
 05 00 05 
 CO CO CO 
 
 oq co 
 cq cq 
 
 rH 05 
 
 co co 
 
 la cq 
 
 CO 05 
 OO OO 
 
 cq o la 
 
 O 05 H 
 CO CO CO 
 
 &o 
 
 C - 
 
 5 o 
 
 O ~ 05 
 
 s 
 
 be s- 
 
 a 
 
 <u 
 
 p IN M 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 31 
 
 00 CO ID 
 CO LO ^ 
 CO CO CO 
 
 W 00 05 
 <M C<l 
 
 CO N LO 
 
 ZD ID <M 
 O ^ 00 
 ID ID ID 
 
 0) 
 
 m 
 
 ZD 00 ^ 
 
 ZD <M rt« 
 
 oo oo oo | ^ 
 
 a 
 
 O rH ZD 
 H rt< ZD 
 l D ID ID 
 
 M S * 
 
 °° °® | £ 
 O O I 
 
 Sh 
 
 o 
 
 oo oo 
 
 ■>* t~ 
 
 eo co 
 
 o o 
 
 <M 
 
 oo oo 
 
 O N to 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 ? N M 
 
 bJD 
 
 05 rt^OJOSOi 0i Oi 
 
 2 B 
 < 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ O! » 05 
 
 £ s 
 
 ◄ 
 
TABLE 1 — Continued 
 
 COMPARISON OF MAIN OPERATING RESULTS OF NORTHERN PACIFIC, GREAT NORTHERN, AND SOO LINE WITH 
 
 32 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 o S 
 
 o .S 
 
 f- o 
 <u -ri 
 
 cu w 
 
 £ s 
 
 £ £ £ 
 o o o 
 
 X X 
 
 WWW 
 
 £ £ £ 
 o o o 
 
 X X ,£5 
 WWW 
 
 * * * 
 o o o 
 X X 
 WWW 
 
 -(->+-> +-> 
 o o o 
 
 Z fc z 
 
 o o o 
 
 Z Z Z 
 
 o o o 
 
 Z Z Z 
 
 <M ^ O 
 t- CO 00 
 
 ■p N M 
 
 Cl SJ Ol 
 o TH rH H 
 
 i ^ W 
 
 
 of value of certain stocks required by court to be disposed of. Deducting excess of dividends of these two roads for 1914 over 1913 
 ($86,000,000) would make average dividend on dividend paying stock 6.45 percent and on all stock 4.21 per cent. 
 
COMPARISON OF MAIN OPERATING RESULTS FOR NORTHERN PACIFIC, GREAT NORTHERN, AND SOO LINE 
 WITH THOSE OF THESE THREE AS A WHOLE AND OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT AS A WHOLE 
 
 IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 33 
 
 o S 
 
 CC 00 ^ ^ oo ^ 
 
 as co • ^ os oo 
 
 OS (M CO (M CD <>q 
 - - I>* - - - 
 
 CO H t- 05 O ^ 
 CD oo - 00 CO ^ 
 (N CO CO CO LO O 
 
 l> O Cq CO 05 LO 
 00 CO -OrHD- 
 t- io oo as ^ ^ 
 
 - - - - - 
 
 CO M 05 05 W 
 
 co t>- ► ^ as oo 
 
 t> 00 CO oo us ^ 
 
 CD O 
 
 CD 05 
 
 co co co o (M as 
 
 <m us • aq o cd 
 
 CD O l>- <M CO CO 
 
 - -CD - - - 
 
 o O CO ^ O 
 
 CD LO - H CD L— 
 H US t- h CO OO 
 
 05 LO • T CD CO 
 US OS ^ CO <M 
 ► - 00 - - - 
 Th US CD CD 05 CD 
 US (N - US (M (N 
 CD' 00 t- O O ^ 
 
 t>* O L- 
 
 L— O H rl US W 
 
 ^ CO • 00 CD <M 
 
 D ^ US ^ OO US 
 
 - - (M - 
 
 CO US O H M CO 
 
 (N CD - 00 05 05 
 
 Tf N CD H OO O 
 
 05 H 00 t>- 05 CD 
 
 CO • CO US 00 
 
 H 00 05 CD US CD 
 
 - - LO - - - 
 
 CD (N (N 00 CD O 
 
 b- O - CD O L'* 
 
 CD O CD rH LO 
 
 CO LO 
 
 05 00 
 
 CQ rH cq 
 
 5 Z d «8 
 ® « j n r 
 H £ 
 
 * *g 
 d %£ 
 
 \ m & 
 fc "8 | 
 55 ° 
 
 CD^ CD H ^ US OO 
 
 H t- l> H (M ^ 
 
 |> (N US (N H O 
 
 US US L- CD H 
 OS\ US H (N D- 
 (N CD H ^ US 
 
 CD H CD (N US US 
 CD LO CD LO CD t>- 
 LO H 05 00 H 
 
 h cq os as os 
 
 LO CO 00 05 CO LO 
 
 OS O rH t- 
 
 co IN N CO 00 CO 05 t> LO 
 
 CO IM CO O US ^ 00 LO CO 
 
 ^ (Oq tH 05 O CO CO H 
 
 in o cq o t>- 
 
 00 CO OO CD OO 
 
 cq cd cq go 
 
 €/S- 
 
 00 
 
 oo- 
 
 
 
 •" a> <t> 
 
 
 
 
 • .73 bo 
 
 
 
 U1 
 
 : 6 g 
 v. ~ S 
 
 m 
 
 •o 
 
 2 ^ aj 
 
 £ <D £ 
 
 V 3 a> 
 ^ c a 
 P <0 o 
 
 Sh > 
 t <1) 0) 
 bo s-. be 
 
 S hfl ^ 
 
 ■rj be ,xi 
 cd .5 £5 
 
 S 2 
 
 g c 
 
 m ® 
 
 a be 
 o 
 
 <D a> 
 be f- be 
 g fcr d 
 
 g be 
 
 . ^ 
 s tf 
 
 £ £ 
 
 be be 
 
 G -5 
 
 CD 
 
 W O 
 
 0) 
 
 0 !z| <J £ & 
 
 be 5 
 
 g s 
 
 o -•-> « ‘S 
 £ aJ > £ 
 0 Z <1 fe 
 
 c * 
 § « 
 
 a> <u 
 
 Material for calculation of operating results for western district exclusive of Northern Pacific, Great Northern, and Soo Line- 
 (Col. 3 of table, derived from Col. 3 of this table.) 
 
COMPARATIVE STATISTICS OF LEADING INDIVIDUAL RAILROADS OF THE WEST 
 
 (Includes all lines west of Chicago having gross operating earnings exceeding $10,000,000.) 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 34 
 
 Per cent 
 net 
 
 Corporate 
 
 Income to 
 
 Capital 
 
 Stock 
 
 7.93 
 
 8.79 
 
 8.02 
 
 9.96 
 
 10.92 
 
 8.33 
 
 11.17 
 
 14.56 
 
 7.47 
 
 7.52 
 
 9.61 
 
 7.95 
 
 6.99 
 
 12.73 
 
 18.12 
 
 16.04 
 
 Net 
 
 Corporate 
 
 Income 
 
 $19,661,715 
 
 21,559,738 
 
 19,892,229 
 
 20,903,924 
 
 24,354,815 
 
 19,880,502 
 
 4,224,290 
 
 5,507,041 
 
 2,823,766 
 
 11,467,331 
 
 14,875,013 
 
 12,306,142 
 
 2,084,603 
 
 2,278,933 
 
 2,021,615 
 
 | 14,106,754 
 
 20,086,196 
 
 17,774,286 
 
 Total 
 Capital 
 Stock not 
 held by 
 Company 
 
 $247,940,000 
 247,946,000 
 247,946,000 
 
 209,981,500 
 
 222,940,046 
 
 238,673,693 
 
 37,810,200 
 
 37,810,200 
 
 37,810,200 
 
 152,512,224 
 
 $154,854,486 
 
 $154,854,486 
 
 29,813,067 
 
 110,839,100 
 
 110,839,100 
 
 110,839,100 
 
 Av. Frt. 
 
 Rate 
 per ton 
 per mile 
 (cents) 
 
 0.867 
 
 0.839 
 
 0.854 
 
 0.769 
 
 0.7651 
 
 0.794 
 
 1 
 
 0.701 
 
 0.705 
 
 0,735 
 
 0.907 
 
 0.870 
 
 0.867 
 
 i 
 
 0.868 
 
 0.860 
 
 0.883 
 
 0.752 
 
 0.729 
 
 0.729 
 
 Av. Frt. 
 Revenue 
 per Train 
 mile 
 
 $4.43 
 
 4.54 
 
 4.84 
 
 4.62 
 
 4.86 
 
 5.26 
 
 2.90j 
 
 3.09 
 
 3.14 
 
 2.71 
 
 3.03 
 
 3.01 
 
 2.16 
 
 2.38 
 
 2.71 
 
 3.29 
 
 3.53 
 
 3.49 
 
 Average 
 
 Freight 
 
 Train 
 
 Load, 
 
 Tons 
 
 510.5 
 
 541.6 
 
 566.9 
 
 601.1 
 
 634.5 
 
 662.6 
 
 413.7 
 
 438.7 
 
 426.7 
 
 298.9 
 348.0 
 
 347.6 
 
 249.2 
 276.0 
 
 307.2 
 
 437.7 
 
 483.8 
 
 478.6 
 
 Frt. Tnge 
 Carried 
 
 1 mile 
 per mile 
 of road 
 
 838,358] 
 995,578| 
 889,979 
 
 845,317 
 
 993,445 
 
 890,809 
 
 719,354 
 
 844,144 
 
 684,939 
 
 654,882 
 
 787,902 
 
 771,930 
 
 625,852 
 
 723,019 
 
 740,191 
 
 845,900 
 
 965,083 
 
 942,339 
 
 Ratio 
 of Net to 
 Gross 
 Revenue 
 
 % 
 
 39.8 
 
 38.5 
 
 39.5 
 
 43.1 
 
 41.7 
 
 38.3 
 
 39.5 
 
 40.5 
 
 34.2 
 
 28.5 
 
 29.9 
 20.0 
 
 30.8 
 30.1 
 29.8! 
 
 30.1 
 
 33.4 
 33.0 
 
 Net 
 
 Operating 
 Earnings 
 per Mile 
 
 $4,192 
 
 4,473 
 
 4,280 
 
 3,875 
 
 4,272 
 
 3,718 
 
 2,751 
 
 3,260 
 
 2,431 
 
 2,672 
 
 3,108 
 
 3,007 
 
 2,676 
 
 2,923 
 
 3,066 
 
 2,874 
 
 3,461 
 
 3,348 
 
 
 t- o r- 
 
 <M H CO 
 W tD OO 
 
 O rH O 
 
 O CD O lO 
 
 OO M 05 CD ^ t-H 
 
 Oi <M CD 05 O H 
 
 00 O 05 CD 00 t— 
 
 00 CO 00 
 I> H ?D 
 CO ^ CO 
 
 05 O O 
 
 fO OO H 
 t> N 05 
 CD t- Cl 
 
 00 05 O 
 
 t- O 00 
 ID CD ^ 
 ID CO H 
 
 05 o o 
 
 : : : | : 
 N M [; N M if 
 ffi OS ® J O) Ol Ol 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 z 
 
 <8 
 
 d 
 
 <NI CO 
 05 C5 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 35 
 
 00 00 o co 05 
 
 (N W t> H H 
 
 ^ CO I <N 
 
 ^ ^ CO ^ ^ O 
 
 rH CO LO <M ^ O 
 
 LO LO o H H 
 
 U 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 T-H T—I 
 
 05 CO CO 
 
 H (M fO 
 CO CO CO 
 
 <M <cq oq 
 
 W 00 00 
 ^ W CO 
 t>- <M CO 
 
 CO CO 
 
 oo oq 
 
 GO oo 
 
 LO co 
 
 co oq 
 
 CO CO 
 O LO 
 
 ^ 05 
 rH -rf* 
 C- LO 
 
 r-i (M <X> 
 
 co CO 
 CO <M 
 00 LO 
 
 oq co ^ 
 
 05 05 05 
 
 00 05 LO 
 
 cq h 
 
 05 O 05 
 
 OO 05 co 
 
 CO CO 
 
 CO LO LO 
 OO ^ 05 
 rl <N OO 
 
 co o o 
 oq O o 
 co in cq 
 
 LO LO LO 
 co CO CO 
 
 oo w t> 
 
 00 OO LO 
 
 00 00 oo 
 
 05 05 
 
 05 05 00 
 OO CO ^ 
 00 O CO 
 
 oq co 05 
 
 OO LO CO 
 
 LO co <x> 
 
 ^ o oq 
 
 CO O 05 
 00 LO <M 
 
 H oq N 
 
 H oq co ^ 
 
 pi 05 05 05 
 
 3 ns 
 
 o c 
 
 S 3 
 
 ci a) 
 a be 
 M 3 
 Ph 
 
 cS O 
 
 u 
 
TABLE 2—Continued 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 36 
 
 H 
 c n 
 
 in 
 
 £ 
 
 hi 
 
 l 
 
 H 
 
 u. 
 
 O 
 
 O) 
 
 D 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 DC 
 
 < 
 
 DC 
 
 _l 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 
 Q 
 
 > 
 
 Q 
 
 Z 
 
 0 
 
 Z 
 
 Q 
 
 < 
 
 LU 
 
 U. 
 
 o 
 
 < 1 .) 
 
 o 
 
 I— 
 
 (0 
 
 I- 
 
 < 
 
 I— 
 
 «n 
 
 LU 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 < 
 
 DC 
 
 < 
 
 Q. 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 ^ « o 
 
 Mil* 
 
 ° ® o S‘ Q o 
 
 U G 0.0 S'-y 
 a) uofiw 
 Ph 
 
 0) 
 
 tj <D 
 ra d 
 Sh g 
 « O © 
 
 Om 
 
 o 
 
 ■a "sht 
 
 M O 
 
 4 -> 
 
 . G 
 
 £g’§o 
 
 M DC-M 
 
 <& 
 
 all's § 
 
 <U <U ^ o ° 
 
 tD'C . ,®rrt 
 
 £.2.2-1 
 
 hJ ri S 
 
 Till 
 
 t- |>. 
 
 <M cq 
 
 O 
 
 to cq 05 
 ^ 05 ^ 
 00 CO to 
 
 t- 05 05 
 t>- CD L- 
 00 CO 05 
 
 LO 00 05 
 
 H CD <N 
 
 H 05 00 
 
 I I 
 
 LO LO LO 
 00 00 00 
 W LO ID 
 
 05 05 05 
 05 05 05 
 
 <M cq <M 
 
 00 05 CD 
 cd <cq rH 
 00 oo oo 
 
 (M <cq 
 05 00 CO 
 05 05 05 
 
 0° ^ *} 
 
 ro oq cq 
 
 cd <cq to 
 
 H lO 
 
 CO co co 
 
 05 tO CO 
 
 O l> 05 
 tH cq 
 (N CO CO 
 
 05 <cq tH 
 05 co w 
 
 co ^ 
 
 W h CO 
 CO 00 O 
 
 cq cq co 
 
 OO 05 O 
 LO O 05 
 (M CO 
 
 05 CD b- 
 O <M 
 t- 05 H 
 
 o co CO 
 1C CO H 
 to CO CD 
 
 N ID OO 
 CO to CD 
 
 05 CD 
 05 CD 
 
 CO O CO 
 O ID CO 
 CO tO CD 
 
 O <D 
 O ^ W 2 
 •S-M W £ 
 
 o « 
 
 G bci? 
 
 rv to <D 
 
 cH fl 
 
 h (M C- tO 00 CD 
 
 tH 05 to rt< cq co 
 
 O 00 CD 00 to <M 
 
 > <v 
 
 cq oo oo 
 oo cq lo 
 o cq oo 
 
 02 ^ co 
 
 c3 3 3 
 
 Sh Cq CO 
 O 05 05 
 
 HriH J 
 
 o 
 G 
 cd 
 
 fc 
 
 G 
 - 
 
 xn 
 
 N M ^ (g N CO 't 
 
 l-H r-l r-i ^ rH tH l-l 
 
 05 05 05 . 05 05 05 
 
 rir| H JHHH 
 
 m 
 
 Man 
 
 <M CO 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 oo n o n ® h oo in 
 
 CO (O 00 Ol N m O-^rH W H Ol 
 
 t-OSTl< CD t' CD N H CO rl rl Tf 
 
 'l* CO ■O' H O T)< LO 00 ® lH E- 
 
 t— i cd o ■'fo - '* 1 w oo co o m 05 
 
 t- in in non H co o ^ h w 
 
 H U5 CD 
 H IN CD 
 H IN CO 
 
 O CO O 
 IN N ■O' 
 
 a n o 
 rl N N 
 
 rH O t- 
 
 co is in 
 
 LCS co 00 
 
 t- 00 <M 
 
 | » 
 
 H CD ^ O O O O O O OOO 
 
 co o O CO co co O o o OOO 
 
 N U5 LQ OOO 
 
 LO <M <M CO o HD ooo 
 
 t>* t>- t>- O 00 w oo oo oo ooo 
 
 OOO CO o o OOO LO LO LO 
 
 <M <m <M lo O ^ ^ 
 
 t>- t>« t- OOOrH (M in <m 
 <N (N in IN CO co 
 
 ^ lO I> o t> O O GO 
 
 <N OO O ^ CO CO rH LO LO 
 
 N H H OOO 00 N t> 
 
 Tf 1 (N C5 
 OOO 
 
 r 
 
 H H H H H H OOO OOO 
 
 O 
 
 (MOO 
 W lO ^ 
 
 <M tH O 
 CD t>- 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 0-^0 
 H O H 
 
 CO N co 
 
 tH rH CD tH rt< rH 00 lO OO GO (M LO 
 
 O rH O OOO 
 
 CO CO CO <M LO LO 
 
 ^ ^ ^ CO CO CO 
 
 (M O 00 
 O GO O 
 CO CO 
 
 (N H Tfi 
 00 CO (N 
 IN CO CO 
 
 00 00 N t- 00 O 
 
 t> O CO O CO LO 
 
 CD LO O <M CD H 
 
 rt« <M (M LO <N CD 
 
 O LO CO rH CD O 
 
 (D t> l> t- !>• t> 
 
 O ^ LO 05 O H 
 
 H H 05 OO O Oi 
 
 O CO 05 05 CD N 
 
 00 (N N O O 00 
 
 CD rH 00 CD N H 
 
 CD 00 t"* LO CD CD 
 
 LO !>• CO 
 <M <M O 
 
 O CD 00 
 (M CO O 
 H 05 N 
 
 N CO H N CO H 
 05 C5 05 ^ 05 05 05 
 
 (M CO Tt* 
 rH rH rH 
 05 05 05 
 
TABLE 2—Continued 
 
 38 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 I— 
 
 <O 
 
 LU 
 
 £ 
 
 LU 
 
 I 
 
 H 
 
 Ll 
 
 O 
 
 (0 
 
 Q 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 CC 
 
 l 
 
 < 
 
 cc 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 
 Q 
 
 > 
 
 Q 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 Q 
 
 < 
 
 LU 
 
 -I 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 I- 
 
 C0 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 I- 
 
 < 
 
 h- 
 
 C0 
 
 LU 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 CC 
 
 < 
 
 0. 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 £ g 
 ^Oo 
 
 ^ «J) © -JH tO 
 
 
 a 
 
 5h © 
 
 0) O 
 
 +J ©.S 
 
 Si g C<3 . 
 
 > & s- i 
 
 C- L- ^ 
 t>* 00 
 00 LO CO 
 
 O 
 
 O W 05 
 LO L- 
 
 ooo ooo ooo 
 ooo ooo ooo 
 05 OO w ooo ooo 
 
 I>- o ^ ooo ooo 
 
 OO 1 -H t- ooo ooo 
 
 H (M 00 OOO OOO 
 
 CD CD rH ooo ooo 
 
 H H (N OOO WWW 
 
 CO CO 00 rH tH rH 
 
 -H- *W* 
 
 05 Cq CD 00 CO 05 O 
 CO Cq W ^ W OO L* 
 
 OOO OOO rHOO 
 
 OOO OOO H H H 
 
 LO O CD MM 00 CD 00 CO 
 
 00 rH O O t>- t>* 00 00 t- 
 
 COt^t^ LO ^ ^ 
 
 L0 05 O 
 
 O rH tH 
 H ^ CO 
 ^ 
 
 W 00 w 
 
 O O 00 
 CO o o 
 
 W ^ ^ 
 
 Cq CD H 
 
 <M t- t> 
 
 CO o cd cd 
 
 O LO o LO LO 
 
 CD rH 00 00 o 
 
 O CO tH 00 CD 
 
 OO 05 W 05 05 
 
 OOO 00 00 
 
 CO (MHO 
 
 i>- r-i 05 cq 
 
 CD 00 05 W 
 
 W CD 05 
 00 LO CD CO 
 
 C- H W W 
 
 rf 05 CO O H L— CO t> 05 
 
 CO rH CD 
 H H W 
 O t> 
 
 o cq 
 LO O 
 OO H 00 
 
 WWW CD LO 
 
 (M CO (M 
 
 CO H H 
 OO (M CO 
 CO ^ H 
 
 00 H O0 
 H t- CO 
 O OO CO 
 
 o o t>* 
 
 C5 05 
 LO ^ 05 
 
 00 05 00 
 
 <D 
 
 
 6 
 
 O 
 
 fc 
 
 £ 
 
 6 
 
 <M CO 
 
 T—| T—I 1-H 
 
 Ol <3> 51 
 
 BO 
 
 oj 
 
 X 
 
 <D 
 
 H 
 
 d 
 
 ctf 
 
 M 
 
 6 
 
 CD ^ rH rH 
 
 v-O O' t- 
 
 03 CO o 
 
 03 
 
 h W h t- 
 
 oo oo cq o 
 
 CO 05 cq LO 
 
 ^ w 05 cq 
 
 00 rH CO t>- 
 
 rH CO LO O 
 
 03 03 
 
 O O 
 LO O O 
 (M l> O 
 
 (M 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 LO 
 
 CO LO M Cq 
 
 oo oq cq lo 
 
 (M CO CO tH 
 
 w o 
 
 L~ M t>- rH 
 
 cd cq co 
 
 O rH tH 
 
 05 ’ oo co cq 
 
 oo i> 05 cq 
 
 cq co cq cq 
 
 05 o o 00 
 
 05 CO 00 CO 
 
 00 ^ CD 00 
 
 cq cq cq rH 
 
 H CD OO rH 
 
 00 CD CO t>- 
 
 00 t>- OO rH 
 
 t>- t>- CO 05 
 
 CO 05 OO O 
 
 W H H H< 
 
 LO LO 05 CD 
 
 ’’t 05 t> 05 
 
 co cq cq 
 
 co cq cq 
 
 CD CD rH 
 
 cq D H 
 h cq 
 
 05 00 00 
 
 CD 
 
 o 
 
 oo 
 
 cq co 
 
 05 05 
 
 
 CO 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 30 
 
 0^(0 
 
 I I I 
 
 00 00 
 O i-H 
 
 oo co 
 
 00 00 <M 
 
 O OO 
 
 co oo t- 
 
 I I 
 
 oo m cq ■**< r-i t- 
 (MCOO H N Tf CO 
 
 M M ^ N IM M N N N 
 
 lio oq •'f 
 
 ^ in t> 
 co o co 
 cq M M 
 
 N OO 'f 
 
 00 <35 05 
 rH M r*< 
 N N N 
 
 CO CSI 05 
 
 OO OO O 
 N OO ■t 
 
 o-^t- o n m o in oo 
 
 H N 50 O 50 M t- C~ 00 
 
 T-l 00 C~ 05 CO tH N 05 M 
 
 
 O oq oo 
 
 be £ 2 £ 
 ci222 
 o H ri H 
 
 
 o 
 
40 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 < 
 
 CO 
 
 Lii 
 
 -J 
 
 QQ 
 
 < 
 
 I- 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 I- 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 
 _l 
 
 < 
 
 > 
 
 DC 
 
 O 
 
 Li. 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 CD 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 LU 
 
 D 
 
 Z 
 
 LU 
 
 > 
 
 LU 
 
 or 
 
 H 
 
 LU 
 
 Z 
 
 < 
 
 h 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 DC 
 
 LU 
 
 I 
 
 t- 
 
 DC 
 
 O 
 
 z 
 
 I- 
 
 < 
 
 LU 
 
 DC 
 
 O 
 
NORTHERN PACIFIC—TOTAL NET REVENUE AS BASIS FOR VALUATION 
 
 IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE R Al LW AY—TOTAL NET REVENUE AS BASIS FOR VALUATION 
 
 42 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAIRROADS 
 
 T3 
 
 03 
 
 m 
 
 cC 
 
 03 
 
 O 
 
 -M 
 
 a 
 
 03 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 ’w 
 
 S3 
 
 O 
 
 C3 
 
 01 
 
 £ 
 
 u 
 
 O 
 
 «t-i 
 
 2 
 
 cO 
 
 ft 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 43 
 
 TABLE 4 
 
 PRICES OF STOCKS OF THE SEVERAL RAILROADS 
 July 1911-June 1914 
 
 • 
 
 Northern Pacific 
 
 Great Northern 
 
 Soo Line 
 
 Lowest 
 
 Highest 
 
 Lowest 
 
 Highest 
 
 (Bid Prices) 
 
 Common Pr’f’d 
 
 1911— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 July .. 
 
 130 
 
 12 
 
 135 
 
 
 133. 
 
 .75 
 
 133 
 
 
 139. 
 
 75 
 
 155 
 
 
 Aug. 
 
 114 
 
 5 
 
 131 
 
 .5 
 
 120, 
 
 .5 
 
 134, 
 
 .5 
 
 130. 
 
 .5 
 
 145. 
 
 5 
 
 Sept. 
 
 110 
 
 75 
 
 118 
 
 .88 
 
 119 
 
 
 124 
 
 .75 
 
 126 
 
 
 144 
 
 
 Oct. 
 
 113 
 
 25 
 
 118 
 
 
 122 
 
 
 127 
 
 
 133. 
 
 .75 
 
 147 
 
 
 Nov. 
 
 117 
 
 
 122 
 
 .5 
 
 124, 
 
 .5 
 
 129 
 
 .75 
 
 134 
 
 .5 
 
 147 
 
 
 Dec. 
 
 115 
 
 75 
 
 119 
 
 .37 
 
 125, 
 
 .5 
 
 129 
 
 .12 
 
 134, 
 
 .5 
 
 148. 
 
 ,37 
 
 1912— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jan . 
 
 115 
 
 37 
 
 119. 
 
 .75 
 
 126 
 
 
 132. 
 
 .5 
 
 129. 
 
 .5 
 
 147 
 
 
 Feb. 
 
 115 
 
 37 
 
 117. 
 
 .88 
 
 127. 
 
 12 
 
 131. 
 
 ,12 
 
 133. 
 
 ,37 
 
 147 
 
 
 Mar. 
 
 117 
 
 5 
 
 123 
 
 .63 
 
 130 
 
 .37 
 
 134 
 
 .5 
 
 137 
 
 .63 
 
 148. 
 
 .5 
 
 Apr. 
 
 120 
 
 
 125 
 
 .63 
 
 130 
 
 .25 
 
 135 
 
 .75 
 
 140. 
 
 .5 
 
 150 
 
 
 May . 
 
 118 
 
 
 121 
 
 .63 
 
 130 
 
 
 133 
 
 .63 
 
 140 
 
 
 152 
 
 
 June . 
 
 118 
 
 5 
 
 121 
 
 .37 
 
 132 
 
 .5 
 
 135 
 
 
 143, 
 
 .5 
 
 150 
 
 
 Average . 
 
 
 120 
 
 .05 
 
 
 
 129 
 
 .46 
 
 
 135 
 
 .29 
 
 148. 
 
 .45 
 
 1912— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 July . 
 
 118. 
 
 .25 
 
 124. 
 
 .63 
 
 133 
 
 
 141 
 
 
 150 
 
 
 156 
 
 
 Aug. 
 
 125 
 
 
 131 
 
 .5 
 
 138 
 
 
 143 
 
 .75 
 
 150. 
 
 .75 
 
 150 
 
 
 Sept. 
 
 125 
 
 .5 . 
 
 130 
 
 .5 
 
 136 
 
 .75 
 
 142 
 
 .5 
 
 149, 
 
 .25 
 
 153. 
 
 .37 
 
 Oct. 
 
 122. 
 
 .63 
 
 130. 
 
 .37 
 
 135. 
 
 .25 
 
 141. 
 
 .88 
 
 140 
 
 
 150 
 
 
 Nov. 
 
 123 
 
 
 128 
 
 
 136 
 
 .5 
 
 141 
 
 .25 
 
 141 
 
 .5 
 
 148 
 
 
 Dec. 
 
 117 
 
 .88 
 
 125, 
 
 .12 
 
 129 
 
 
 138 
 
 .5 
 
 137. 
 
 .5 
 
 146 
 
 
 1913— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jan. 
 
 117, 
 
 .25 
 
 122 
 
 .63 
 
 125, 
 
 .75 
 
 132 
 
 .63 
 
 140 
 
 
 144 
 
 
 Feb. 
 
 113 
 
 .63 
 
 120 
 
 .25 
 
 124 
 
 
 129, 
 
 .63 
 
 136. 
 
 ,5 
 
 142 
 
 
 Mar.,. 
 
 114 
 
 
 118 
 
 
 124. 
 
 .75 
 
 129. 
 
 .5 
 
 134. 
 
 5 
 
 142 
 
 
 Apr. 
 
 113 
 
 .5 
 
 119, 
 
 .12 
 
 124. 
 
 .5 
 
 131. 
 
 .25 
 
 131. 
 
 .75 
 
 141 
 
 
 May . 
 
 113 
 
 .25 
 
 115 
 
 .88 
 
 125 
 
 
 127 
 
 .88 
 
 128 
 
 
 135 
 
 
 June . 
 
 101 
 
 .75 
 
 114 
 
 
 115 
 
 .5 
 
 125 
 
 .75 
 
 122 
 
 
 132 
 
 
 Average . 
 
 
 120 
 
 .24 
 
 
 
 132 
 
 .23 
 
 
 138, 
 
 .48 
 
 144. 
 
 ,95 
 
 1913— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 July . 
 
 105, 
 
 .12 
 
 110 
 
 .88 
 
 122 
 
 
 126, 
 
 .75 
 
 125. 
 
 .12 
 
 140 
 
 
 Aug. 
 
 109 
 
 
 114 
 
 
 125 
 
 .5 
 
 129, 
 
 .63 
 
 134 
 
 
 140 
 
 
 Sept. 
 
 110 
 
 .25 
 
 115 
 
 .12 
 
 125, 
 
 .25 
 
 129 
 
 .25 
 
 132, 
 
 .5 
 
 135 
 
 
 Oct. 
 
 105 
 
 .12 
 
 112 
 
 .63 
 
 120. 
 
 .12 
 
 127, 
 
 .12 
 
 128 
 
 
 135 
 
 
 Nov. 
 
 103, 
 
 .75 
 
 108 
 
 
 121. 
 
 .12 
 
 124, 
 
 .5 
 
 126 
 
 
 131 
 
 
 Dec.. 
 
 105 
 
 .75 
 
 110 
 
 .75 
 
 123 
 
 
 127, 
 
 .75 
 
 125 
 
 
 135 
 
 
 1914— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jan. 
 
 109 
 
 
 117, 
 
 .5 
 
 125, 
 
 .25 
 
 132, 
 
 .5 
 
 132. 
 
 ,75 
 
 142. 
 
 5 
 
 Feb. 
 
 111. 
 
 .5 
 
 118. 
 
 .5 
 
 126. 
 
 37 
 
 134. 
 
 ,75 
 
 133. 
 
 25 
 
 143 
 
 
 Mar. 
 
 109 
 
 .5 
 
 116 
 
 .75 
 
 125. 
 
 .75 
 
 128, 
 
 .88 
 
 126 
 
 
 139 
 
 
 Apr. 
 
 106. 
 
 .5 
 
 115. 
 
 .12 
 
 119 
 
 
 127. 
 
 63 
 
 121. 
 
 5 
 
 130 
 
 
 May . 
 
 108 
 
 
 112, 
 
 .63 
 
 121, 
 
 .88 
 
 125, 
 
 .25 
 
 - 125. 
 
 .5 
 
 135 
 
 
 June . 
 
 108 
 
 .5 
 
 111 
 
 .88 
 
 121 
 
 
 125 
 
 
 123 
 
 
 130 
 
 
 Average . 
 
 
 110 
 
 .66 
 
 
 
 125 
 
 .64 
 
 
 127. 
 
 .72 
 
 136. 
 
 29 
 
 Average July 1911-June 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1914 . 
 
 
 116 
 
 .98 
 
 
 
 129 
 
 .11 
 
 
 137. 
 
 16 
 
 143. 
 
 23 
 
TABLE 5-A 
 
 GREAT NORTHERN—VALUE OF SECURITIES BASED ON RAILROAD PROPERTY 
 
 44 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 OO h lO N 
 
 Oi CD 
 CO 
 
 CD 00 lO ^ 
 IN H rf H 
 O CD CO 00 
 
 r>T ^ 00 
 co <oq cd t>- 
 
 C 05 05 
 I CO o LO 
 O 05 05 
 
 oo LD tH 
 
 00 CM CO m 
 
 3 -M 2 « I 
 lu ® « 
 
 O fl'd « 
 
 j® o T 
 
 cWg 
 S » « 
 S &c tc 
 
 Si? o 
 
 “ | 8 * " 
 S 2 
 
 ft 
 
 o-S 
 
 ■M O 
 
 I fi 
 
 S-i rr-j 
 <D ^ 
 O. ™ 
 
 c 3 oi 
 
 I 03 .2 
 
 
 cS 
 
 * s 
 
 oS 
 
 * s 
 
 OH > 
 
 O G 
 ra 
 
 G tn 
 O 0) 
 
 « 55 ffl 
 
 111 
 
 G 
 
 +J O 
 
 03 ffl 
 
 C h 
 ce 3 
 
 a S 
 
 S £ 
 
 o 
 
 u 2 
 T3 3 
 
 -2 «S 
 
 G 0) 
 
 g ^ 
 a S3 
 
 ^ >» 
 O t 1 
 
 ft 2 
 
 c fM 
 o 
 
 £ Q 
 
 $ Includes physical property, unpledged securities, and certain pledged securities. 
 
NORTHERN PACIFIC—VALU E OF SECURITIES BASED ON RAILROAD PROPERTY 
 
 IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 45 
 
 o o 
 
 CD o 
 
 o o 
 
 t- Ol 
 t> U3 CO 
 CO 00 IN 
 
 • 01 
 o x 
 
 I 
 
 O O 
 
 o o 
 
 LO O 
 
 <M <M 
 <&- 
 
 <M O 
 
 CTi CD 
 00 Tt« 
 LO CD 
 
 O O 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 O tH (M CO O 
 
 O i-H O -i—I CD 
 
 00 W CD C5 N 
 
 00 OJ h O <M 
 
 CD LO O 00 O 
 
 OO O CD h O 
 
 b- CD W 
 D L- 
 M H T 
 
 £ 
 
 u 
 o 
 
 <W 
 
 to 
 
 a . 
 '5 >> 
 o c 
 £ c3 
 ^ a 
 “ £ 
 £ ° 
 flO 
 
 >> >? 
 c 
 
 S ® 
 
 o ^ 
 
 I ° 
 
 I O 
 
 <D O 
 
 3 >> C 
 
 1 I 
 
 c$ to 
 
 -O 'O 
 
 tO <D 
 
 £ O ^ 
 _ o 
 § be w 
 
 o x 
 
 sa si§21 § 
 
 M S « OQ ffl i-fflM 
 
 I m 
 
 I M 
 
 ts 
 
 <u to 
 
 a 
 
 o ® 
 
 fcn £ 
 *2 
 
 | eg 
 
 c .3 
 o t; 
 £ o 
 
 O 
 
 to ® 
 
 c c 
 
 O cti 
 2 ^ 
 O g 
 
 3 a 
 
 -O «2 
 0) 
 
 O ,* 
 +-> o 
 to O 
 
 5 > 
 
 <y 
 
 a 
 
 ® ri 
 O U 
 
 ^ n-t 
 ID 'O 
 
 ® 03 
 
 3 > 
 
 w X 
 +J o 
 £ o 
 £ £ 
 
 .2 ^ 
 
 S to 3 
 
 <D CD O 
 
 S'SS 
 
 “ a ® 
 
 > S -a 
 
 R o ti 
 
 •rl v 
 
 d) o _ 
 
 ^ r; 'd 
 o n d 
 
 £ 3 2 
 
 ^ "O r-H 
 
 o £ * 
 
 V cfl 
 
 Q cu 
 
 c$ <D 
 
 S 2 
 
 (U 
 
 * Presumably the average market value of N. P. bonds is less than par as average rate of interest is only 3.88 per cent and 
 $54,601,500 bear only 3 per cent. # 
 
 t Includes physical property, unpledged securities and certain pledged securities, 
 t Collateral trust bonds issued for C. B. & Q. stock not included. 
 
TABLE 5-C 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAl LWAY—VALUE OF SECURITIES BASED ON RAILROAD 
 
 PROPERTY 
 
 (Excluding certificates issued in connection with Wisconsin Central Lines, and deducting investments not connected with 
 
 46 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 Includes Wisconsin Central Common stock; most of other stocks are of companies whose lines are not included in operations of 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 47 
 
 TABLE 6-A 
 
 GREAT NORTHERN—SUMMARY OF ASSETS USED IN OPERATION — 
 PER BALANCE SHEET 
 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Road and Equipment . 
 
 $318,990,321 
 
 $341,344,257 
 
 $351,530,158 
 
 Securities of proprietary and affiliated 
 companies (excludes bonds of G. N. 
 
 
 
 
 pledged) . 
 
 33,554,641 
 
 34,675,149 
 
 36,661,439 
 
 Advances to prop, and affil. companies.. 
 
 1,646,759 
 
 449,704 
 
 148,451 
 
 Cash . 
 
 12,829,135 
 
 5,116,814 
 
 5,507,710 
 
 Other working assets, excluding securi¬ 
 ties issued, held in treasury, and 
 
 
 
 
 marketable securities . 
 
 Accrued income not due. 
 
 17,974,085 
 
 406,667 
 
 3,538,319 
 
 19,977,635 
 
 20,725,266 
 
 491,400 
 
 8,110,506 
 
 Deferred debit items . 
 
 3,541,066 
 
 Total . 
 
 $388,939,927 
 
 $405,104,625 
 
 $423,174,930 
 
 Average 1912-14, $405,739,827 
 
 TABLE 6-B 
 
 NORTHERN PACI FIC—SU M M ARY OF ASSETS USED IN OPERATION 
 —PER BALANCE SHEET 
 
 1 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Road and Equipment . 
 
 $404,406,787 
 
 $418,958,386 
 
 $464,046,149 
 
 Securities of proprietary and affiliated 
 companies excluding Spokane, Port¬ 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 land & Seattle . 
 
 8,769,950 
 
 5,458,756 
 
 2,387,026 
 
 Advances to proprietary companies. 
 
 22,665,563 
 
 22,642,067 
 
 958,701 
 
 Cash . 
 
 5,566,568 
 
 3,457,972 
 
 6,595,904 
 
 Other working assets excluding securities 
 issued, in treasury, and marketable 
 
 
 
 
 securities . 
 
 16,442,041 
 
 20,441,673 
 
 20,225,539 
 
 Accrued income not due. 
 
 596,268 
 
 160,. 185 
 
 569,672 
 
 Deferred debit items . 
 
 6,445,359 
 
 6,403”, 707 
 
 7,358,134 
 
 Total . 
 
 * ! 
 
 $464,892,536 
 
 l 
 
 $477,522,746 
 
 $502,141,125 
 
 Average 1912-14, $481,518,802 
 
48 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 TABLE 6-C 
 
 SOO LINE—SUMMARY OF ASSETS USED IN OPERATION—PER 
 BALANCE SHEET 
 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Road and Equipment . 
 
 $98,623,118 
 
 $108,978,818 
 
 $111,524,473 
 
 Advances to proprietary and affiliated 
 
 companies . 
 
 5,547,598 
 
 5,271,256 
 
 
 
 Cash . 
 
 3,357,524 
 
 4,479,428 
 
 Other working assets excluding securities 
 
 issued, held in treasury and market¬ 
 able securities . 
 
 5,322,644 
 
 123,507 
 
 3,467,154 
 
 $118,355,277 
 
 5,784,025 
 
 123,951 
 
 3,389,992 
 
 $121,634,310 
 
 4,713,827 
 
 128,782 
 
 3,310,346 
 
 $124,156,856 
 
 Accrued income not. due . 
 
 Deferred debit items . 
 
 Total . 
 
 
 Average 1912-14, $121,482,148 
 
 For comparing valuation based on net earnings with this value it is neces¬ 
 sary to exclude net earnings from Wisconsin Central, a leased line. 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 49 
 
 H 
 
 Z 
 
 LU 
 
 2 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 OC 
 
 O 
 
 CL 
 
 CL 
 
 < 
 
 Q 
 
 Z 
 
 Z V 
 
 o ^ 
 
 h 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 
 o> 
 
 Ui 
 
 o 
 
 < < 
 
 ^ LU 
 
 ^ > 
 
 o < 
 
 CO w 
 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 1 
 
 H 
 
 LU 
 
 2 
 Ll 
 O 
 
 > 
 
 DC 
 
 < 
 
 >5 
 
 z -5 
 . 2 
 K d 
 M H 
 
 H Pi 
 
 ^ e 
 
 d ® 
 
 d 05 
 05 
 
 £ O 
 
 .2 © 
 
 •2 S 
 
 1 2 
 
 S 
 
 © _ 
 d d 
 m .2 
 w m 
 
 ® >5 
 
 w ,£ 
 
 ft 
 
 0) M 
 S d 
 9 C 
 
 d £ 
 O'Cm 
 
 -t- 1 l~< © 
 
 V, o 00 
 ° ® © 
 . w <M 
 00 
 
 S % © 
 
 O 5 CO 
 ^ fl W 
 
 2 3 
 
 S c 
 o 2 
 
 £ I 
 
 > 3 
 
 M © 
 o w 
 o 
 
 -a o 
 bo d 
 
 § d 
 o _ 
 3 : 
 
 d tc 
 
 m © 
 d a 
 
 O ft 
 
 -2 c 
 
 ft -2 
 
 g C3 
 .2 d 
 
 *-> a 
 
 d -m 
 
 N 
 
 a s-t 
 d « 
 ti ^ 
 
 9° 
 
 u 
 
 a p 
 o - 
 o w 
 m £ 
 
 0_. L 
 
 o S 
 © 2 
 2 ft 
 d ^ 
 > d 
 
 Ll 
 
 O 
 
 LU 
 
 DC 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 * 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 H 
 
 cc 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 Ll 
 
 O 
 
 I- 
 
 Z 
 
 LU 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 I— 
 
 DC 
 
 O 
 
 CL 
 
 0. 
 
 < 
 
 Ll 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 m 
 
 c\i 
 
 05 
 
 CO 
 
 LU 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 DC 
 
 LU 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 I- 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 
 _l 
 
 < 
 
 > 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 d 
 
 > 
 
 <1 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 ft 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 bo 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 § 
 
 © 
 
 ft 
 
 3 
 
 Total. 7,610.5 Per cent in North Dakota. 17.47 
 
 In North Dakota . 1,723.9 Net Rail Operating Revenues— 
 
 Per cent in North Dakota . 22.65 Total. $30,099,366 
 
 Gross Rail Operating Revenues— In North Dakota.. 6,121,280 
 
 Total. $73,418,860 Per cent in North Dakota. 20.34 
 
50 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 
 Ll 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 d 
 
 LU 
 
 
 '£ 
 
 cc 
 
 
 a) 
 
 < 
 
 
 d 
 
 s 
 
 I 
 
 CO 
 
 
 £ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ID 
 
 
 
 XI 
 
 < 
 
 
 g 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 ■d- 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 © 
 
 < 
 
 Q 
 
 <D 
 
 s 
 
 I 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 1 - 
 
 LU 
 
 .a 
 
 DC 
 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 c 
 
 z 
 
 DC 
 
 © 
 
 M 
 
 © 
 
 Li. 
 
 LU 
 
 > 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 © 
 
 X! 
 
 h 
 
 z 
 
 z 
 
 
 LU 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 
 H 
 
 c 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 .2 
 
 o 
 
 D 
 
 Xj 
 
 
 _l 
 
 d 
 
 N 
 
 h" 
 
 < 
 
 
 DC 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 
 a 
 
 d 
 
 Q. 
 
 0 . 
 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 
 © 
 
 X 3 
 
 Li. 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 'S 
 
 CO 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 © 
 
 < 
 
 OQ 
 
 
 d © 
 
 O g 
 
 Q | 
 
 xi* 
 be 
 
 c 
 
 o o 
 
 ■3*' 
 
 Q c 
 
 o O 
 
 x z 
 
 rA 
 
 •K © 
 a 
 c O 
 © _ 
 
 " d d 
 a) W o 
 +j H 
 
 J§ ° 
 
 £S 
 
 CO w> • 
 O OO <M 
 N M IN 
 
 be 
 
 - 
 
 © 
 
 ~ _ O 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 C 
 
 o « 
 
 I (S 
 
 Q K 
 
 O O -£ 
 •* £ *2 
 CC a) 
 
 Q c a 
 _ - O 
 
 w — a; w w 
 
 © c_, C Q. m r, 
 
 c fc-i ^ w p ^ 
 
 « ■3 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
TABLE 7-C 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. M ARIE—SU M M ARY OF METHODS OF VALUATION AND APPORTIONMENT 
 
 OF VALUATION (AVERAGE 1912-14) 
 
 IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 51 
 
 ~ H 
 
 s § 
 
 S a 
 
 ~ a 
 
 cd v 
 "o m 
 
 H >? 
 
 g ® c 
 
 03 02 
 G 03 
 
 *43 
 
 <D r 
 
 « g 
 
 CO 03 
 02 03 
 01 to 
 
 00 bo 
 ■ G 
 
 ® d u 
 
 to 73 
 v G 
 > o 
 G .ft 
 
 u * 
 
 03 % 
 .G cd 
 
 03 G 
 
 a a; 
 
 to U 
 
 03 ft 
 u 03 
 
 •- d ® d 
 
 G G 
 •2 8 
 
 § o C c 
 
 ■2 « 2 d 
 
 .2 -5 £ 
 
 ft! 03 
 
 ft c 
 
 ft 
 
 • cd 03 
 03 is x 
 
 W ® '§• O 
 
 o u 
 
 cd 
 
 2 cd to 
 
 ■d ® £ 
 C o 03 
 
 „ § 
 
 h cd <w 
 
 2 o ° 
 
 S X 03 
 
 “ cd bo 
 
 Q g 
 
 03 X3 
 
 o t! 
 
 z l - 
 
 u, OF ILL Ub. 
 
52 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 C 
 
 N. 
 
 LU 
 
 -J 
 
 m 
 
 < 
 
 h 
 
 fl < 
 
 o 
 
 o u. 
 
 I o 
 
 . • . .^^OCOMWOGIOI> 
 
 N M • <r> CO • ^ 05 -GOLO • CO LO 
 
 <M 05 O <M 05 O - - 05 - - ■H - • 05 
 
 OJHCOOJH^^^HUJOONOOy'N 
 - ~ * - ►++C000*K^(McO5H(MI(- 
 
 CO t-H 03 i-i 05 tO O CO 00 N 
 
 00 iO 
 
 (M 
 
 C- C-l 
 
 <M 05 
 
 00 00 
 ^ tH 
 05 oq 
 
 <D 
 
 t- <M 
 <M IO 
 O <M 
 
 CO 00 
 <X> rH 
 05 <M 
 
 oq rH 
 
 C$ 
 
 0) 
 
 3 
 
 fi 
 
 5 s 
 
 cd 3 
 Q w 
 
 00 00 
 C\j cq 
 
 o o 
 co oo 
 05 ccq 
 
 D- OO 
 *£> ^ 
 <T> 05 
 
 g 2 o 
 2 CS ^ 
 
 5 cj 
 
 o 
 
 ^P 
 
 - o 
 
 o 
 
 p. X 
 « d 
 ft P 
 
 £ w +J J-J r-H +J 
 
 Sfioglo 
 
 Pn £ 
 
 18* 
 
 - 0) 
 in,® 
 H w c 
 
 3 
 
 - 4) M 
 
 3 Oh § 
 
 o 
 
 a3 a> 
 
 IS 
 I > 
 
 Q <D 
 
 t, 6C -5 
 
 O c o 
 
 5 2 j*! 
 
 d * 
 
 c ^ Q 
 
 .5 <d M 
 <u _ o 
 
 o 2 o 
 . «5 Z 
 « « - 
 p ^ 3 
 
 <u 
 
 £ 
 
 o 
 
 7i 
 
 . P 
 
 5 £ 
 
 a) O o 
 
 be P C 
 
 C — 
 Si *> 
 
 ftl " 
 
 23£ 
 
 0) 
 
 £ 
 
 || Wisconsin Central net earnings taken as amount paid by Soo Line as rental for Wisconsin Central. 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 53 
 
 TABLE 8 
 
 COMBINATION OF CERTAIN METHODS OF COMMERCIAL VALUA¬ 
 TION OF ENTIRE SYSTEMS AND NORTH DAKOTA’S SHARE 
 THEREOF ON BASIS OF COMBINATION OF CERTAIN 
 METHODS OF DISTRIBUTION (AVERAGES 
 1912-14) 
 
 (The valuations designated as C 1 are considered most satisfactory.) 
 
 
 Great 
 
 Northern 
 
 Northern 
 
 Pacific 
 
 Soo Line 
 (Exc. 
 
 Wis. Cen.) 
 
 Entire System— 
 
 1. Capitalization at six per. cent of 
 net earnings from rail operations 
 
 $501,656,100 
 
 $446,339,000 
 
 $130,610,100 
 
 2. Market value of stocks and bonds 
 deducting book value of physical 
 property (“other investments”) 
 and of securities of non-system 
 corporations . 
 
 367,517,805 
 
 408,929,106 
 
 115,486,516 
 
 3. Average of 1 and 2. 
 
 434,586,953 
 
 427,634,053 
 
 123,048,308 
 
 A. North Dakota’s Share on Basis of 
 Mileage of— 
 
 1. 
 
 113,625,107 
 
 99,801,400 
 
 53,275,860 
 
 2. 
 
 83,242,783 
 
 91,436,548 
 
 47,106,950 
 
 3. 
 
 98,433,945 
 
 95,618,974 
 
 50,191,405 
 
 B. North Dakota’s Share on Basis of 
 Gross Earnings of— 
 
 1. 
 
 87,639,321 
 
 70,119,857 
 
 *36,175,096 
 
 2. 
 
 64,205,361 
 
 64,242,763 
 
 $31,978,784 
 
 3. 
 
 75,922,341 
 
 67,181,310 
 
 34,076,940 
 
 C. North Dakota’s Share on Basis of 
 combination of Mileage and Gross 
 Earnings (i. e., average of A and 
 B)— 
 
 1. 
 
 100,632,214 
 
 84,960,620 
 
 44,725,478 
 
 2. 
 
 73,724,072 
 
 77,829,656 
 
 39,542,867 
 
 3. 
 
 87,178,143 
 
 81,400,142 
 
 42,134,173 
 
 * This figure is obtained by capitalizing the total net earnings from rail 
 operations, including Wisconsin Central, and apportioning to the share which 
 gross earnings in North Dakota form of total gross earnings including Wiscon¬ 
 sin Central. This is necessary because gross earnings excluding Wisconsin 
 Central are not reported. 
 
 t Not directly ascertainable. Estimated by reducing item B 1 to the same 
 percentage by which item A 2 falls below A 1. 
 
54 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 TABLE 9 
 
 VALUATIONS PER MILE OF LINE AS BASED ON VARIOUS METHODS 
 
 OF COMPUTATION 
 
 Great Northern ' Soo 
 
 j Northern Pacific [ Line 
 
 I. North Dakota’s Share on Basis of 
 its Share of Line Mileage— 
 
 Method 1 . 
 
 Method 2 . 
 
 Method 3 . 
 
 Average three methods. 
 
 Average 1 and 3 . 
 
 II. North Dakota’s Share on Basis of 
 its Share of Gross Earnings— 
 
 Method 1 . 
 
 Method 2 . 
 
 Method 3 . 
 
 Average of three methods.... 
 
 Average one and three. 
 
 III. North Dakota’s Share on Basis of 
 its Share of Net Earnings— 
 
 Method 1 . 
 
 Method 2 . 
 
 Method 3 . 
 
 Average of three methods.... 
 
 Average 1 and 3 . 
 
 North Dakota’s Share on Basis of Aver¬ 
 age of I, II and III— 
 
 Method 1 . 
 
 Method 2 . 
 
 Method 3 . 
 
 Average three methods. 
 
 Average 1 and 3 . 
 
 North Dakota’s Share on Basis of Aver¬ 
 age of I and II—■ 
 
 Method 1 . 
 
 Method 3 . 
 
 Average 1 and 3 . 
 
 Assessed Valuation per mile, 1913. 
 
 $61,975 
 
 $66,913 
 
 $41,969 
 
 63,479 
 
 73,861 
 
 43,569 
 
 45,404 
 
 61,305 
 
 37,110 
 
 56,951 
 
 67,360 
 
 40,883 
 
 53,690 
 
 64,109 
 
 39,539 
 
 47,802 
 
 47,013 
 
 28,507 
 
 48,962 
 
 51,894 
 
 
 35,020 
 
 43,073 
 
 26,853 
 
 43,928 
 
 47,327 
 
 
 41,411 
 
 45,043 
 
 27,680 
 
 55,654 
 
 54,045 
 
 3CT, 641 
 
 57,005 
 
 5^9,657 
 
 31,809 
 
 40,773 
 
 49,516 
 
 27,093 
 
 51,144 
 
 54,406 
 
 29,848 
 
 48,214 
 
 51,781 
 
 28,867 
 
 55,144 
 
 55,991 
 
 36,305 
 
 56,482 
 
 61,804 
 
 37,689 
 
 40,399 
 
 51,298 
 
 32,101 
 
 50,675 
 
 56,031 
 
 35,365 
 
 47,772 
 
 53,645 
 
 34,203 
 
 54,889 
 
 56,963 
 
 35,238 
 
 40,212 
 
 52,189 
 
 31.982 
 
 47,551 
 
 54,576 
 
 33,407 
 
 39,323 
 
 38,429 
 
 
 Explanation of Table 
 
 . Mileage (end of 1914), used for computing averages per mile on estimated 
 valuations and on assessment of 1914: N. P., 1,491.5; G. N., 1,833.4; Soo Line, 
 1,269; (include line owned and line of proprietary and leased companies except 
 for Soo). 
 
 Mileage (end of 1913) used for computing averages per mile of assessment of 
 1913: N. P., 1,453.3; G. N., 1,812.9; Soo Line, 1,240.8; (same basis as above). 
 
 Figures into which these mileages were divided given in Tables 8 and 9. 
 
 Method 1 is capitalization at 6 per cent of net rail operating revenues. 
 
 Method 2 is capitalization at 6 per cent of total net revenue available for 
 taxes and for payment of interest on bonds and dividends, excluding income 
 from outside investment. 
 
 Method 3 is market value of bonds and stocks, deducting outside investment. 
 
 Soo Line figures exclude Wisconsin Central and are not available on basis 
 of North Dakota’s share of gross earnings. 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 55 
 
 TABLE 10-A 
 
 GREAT NORTHERN RAI LWAY—TRACKAGE BY STATES AND TAXES 
 
 Line Owned 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 6,368.5 
 
 6,451.2 
 
 6,553.4 
 
 6,856.5 
 
 6,902.8 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 1,544.5 
 
 1,544.5 
 
 1,596.0 
 
 1,812.9 
 
 1,833.4 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 37.5 
 
 37.5 
 
 37.5 
 
 38.4 
 
 38.5 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 2,088.7 
 
 2,110.8 
 
 2,106.9 
 
 2,104.4 
 
 2,104.9 
 
 South Dakota .... 
 
 262.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 Iowa . 
 
 76.6 
 
 76.6 
 
 77.9 
 
 77.9 
 
 77.9 
 
 Montana. 
 
 1,459.5 
 
 1,459.5 
 
 1,513.3 
 
 1,583.7 
 
 1,583.6 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 81.6 
 
 81.6 
 
 81.6 
 
 81.5 
 
 104.7 
 
 Washington . 
 
 817.7 
 
 878.4 
 
 877.9 
 
 895.4 
 
 894.6 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Canada . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Line Operated 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 6,878.0 
 
 7,146.8 
 
 7,482.4 
 
 7,750.2 
 
 7,802.7 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 1,563.6 
 
 1,563.6 
 
 1,615.0 
 
 1,812.9 
 
 1,833.4 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 43.3 
 
 43.3 
 
 43.3 
 
 44.3 
 
 44.4 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 2,094.8 
 
 2,116.9 
 
 2,114.9 
 
 2,112.4 
 
 2,113.C 
 
 South Dakota .... 
 Iowa. 
 
 262.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 77.9 
 
 262.4 
 
 77.9 
 
 262.4 
 77.1 
 1,639.C 
 
 Montana . 
 
 1,474.4 
 
 1,474.4 
 
 1,528.2 
 
 1,598.6 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 81.6 
 
 81.6 
 
 107.4 
 
 107.3 
 
 107.4 
 
 Washington . 
 
 847.0 
 
 1,044.2 
 
 1,061.6 
 
 1,061.3 
 
 1,060.4 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 
 8.5 
 
 9.7 
 
 9.8 
 
 9.8 
 
 Canada . 
 
 510.9 
 
 551.8 
 
 661.9 
 
 663.5 
 
 655.C 
 
56 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 TABLE 10-A—Continued 
 
 GREAT NORTHERN RAI LWAY—TRACKAGE BY STATES AND TAXES 
 
 Line Operated and Owned 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 6,271.3 
 
 1,544.5 
 
 37.5 
 
 2,079.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 6,354.0 
 
 1.544.5 
 37.5 
 
 2.101.5 
 262.4 
 
 6,535.7 
 
 1.596.0 
 
 37.5 
 2,100.6 
 
 262.4 
 77.9 
 
 1,513.3 
 
 81.6 
 
 866.5 
 
 6.838.8 
 
 1.812.9 
 
 38.4 
 2,098.1 
 
 262.4! 
 
 77.9 
 
 1,583.7 
 
 81.5 
 884.0 
 
 6,885.1 
 
 1,833.4 
 
 38.5 
 
 2,098.7 
 
 262.4 
 
 77.9 
 
 1,583.6 
 
 107.4 
 883.2 
 
 North Dakota 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 South Dakota ... 
 Tnwfl. 
 
 Montana . 
 
 1,459.5 
 
 81.6 
 
 806.4 
 
 1,459.5 
 
 81.6 
 
 867.0 
 
 Tda.ho .... 
 
 Washington . 
 
 Oregon .. 
 
 Canada . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Line Operated 
 
 Proprietary and Leased Lines 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 504.8 
 
 545.7 
 
 622.5 
 
 606.3 
 
 623.7 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 Wi soon sin . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.8 
 
 South Dakota ... 
 
 
 
 Iowa 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 Montana . 
 
 
 
 
 
 43.0 
 
 Tdahn . 
 
 
 
 25.8 
 
 25.8 
 
 TVa.shington . 
 
 
 
 17.8 
 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 
 
 
 
 Canada. 
 
 503.0 
 
 543.9 
 
 577.1 
 
 1 
 
 578.7 
 
 578.9 
 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 57 
 
 TABLE 10-A— Continued 
 
 GREAT NORTHERN RAI LWAY—TRACKAGE BY STATES AND TAXES 
 
 Total Owned 
 
 Plus Proprietary and Leased Lines 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 | 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 6,873.3 
 
 6,996.9 
 
 7,175.9) 
 
 7,462.8 
 
 7,526.5 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 1,544.5 
 
 1,544.5 
 
 1,596.0 
 
 1,812.9 
 
 1,833.4 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 37.5 
 
 37.5 
 
 37.5 
 
 38.4 
 
 38.5 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 2,090.5 
 
 2,112.6 
 
 2,108.7 
 
 2,106.2 
 
 2,106.7 
 
 South Dakota ... 
 
 262.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 262.4 
 
 Iowa . 
 
 76.6 
 
 76.6 
 
 77.9 
 
 77.9 
 
 77.9 
 
 Montana . 
 
 1,459.5 
 
 1,459.5 
 
 1/513.3 
 
 1,583.7 
 
 1,626.6 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 81.6 
 
 81.6 
 
 107.4 
 
 107.3 
 
 107.4 
 
 Washington . 
 
 817.7 
 
 878.4 
 
 895.7 
 
 895.4 
 
 894.6 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Canada . 
 
 503.0 
 
 543.0 
 
 577.1 
 
 578.7 
 
 578.9 
 
 Taxes Accrued 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total. 
 
 *$2,553,436 
 
 | *$3,545,278 
 
 *$3,486,572 
 
 | *$4,276,898 
 
 *$4,790,573 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 $533,146 
 
 $590,965 
 
 $613,818 
 
 $692,991 
 
 $778,139 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 118,495 
 
 72,949 
 
 129,734 
 
 134,351 
 
 155,974 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 680,266 
 
 1,029,032 
 
 1,083,270 
 
 1,419,512 
 
 1,505,601 
 
 South Dakota ... 
 
 53,190 
 
 63,898 
 
 50,014 
 
 69,516 
 
 79,721 
 
 Tnwfl. 
 
 
 
 19,327 
 
 30,061 
 
 25,351 
 
 Montana . 
 
 425,462 
 
 498,999 
 
 618,807 
 
 714,385 
 
 804,805 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 31,600 
 
 51,667 
 
 76,601 
 
 90,626 
 
 82,567 
 
 Washington . 
 
 669,032 
 
 944,943 
 
 663,992 
 
 871,192 
 
 1,073,040 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 
 
 200 
 
 17 
 
 100 
 
 Canada . 
 
 42,243 
 
 59,209 
 
 70,362 
 
 92,859 
 
 90,253 
 
 * Total includes federal taxes: $133,610 in 1910, $160,418 in 1912, $161,388 in 
 
 1913, and $195,021 in 1914. 
 
58 
 
 ASSESSMENTS QF RAILROADS 
 
 TABLE 10-B 
 
 NORTHERN PACI FIC—TRACKAGE BY STATES AND TAXES 
 
 Line Owned 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 6,218.8 
 
 6,258.0 
 
 6,483.5 
 
 *6,145.8 
 
 6,756.7 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 1,183.6 
 
 1,184.1 
 
 1,310.2 
 
 1,273.2 
 
 1,491.5 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 144.6 
 
 145.8 
 
 144.4 
 
 143.9 
 
 145.4 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 1,032.7 
 
 1,033.8 
 
 1,040.1 
 
 1,029.4 
 
 1,072.9 
 
 Montana . 
 
 1,404.2 
 
 1,435.4 
 
 1,446.4 
 
 1,393.0 
 
 1,475.2 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 343.1 
 
 343.2 
 
 342.2 
 
 207.0 
 
 338.4 
 
 Washington . 
 
 1,665.0 
 
 1,670.6 
 
 1,755.7 
 
 1,651.8 
 
 1,785.5 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 89.9 
 
 89.5 
 
 88.9 
 
 88.7 
 
 89.1 
 
 ^Manitoba . 
 
 355.6 
 
 355.6 
 
 355.6 
 
 358.8 
 
 358.8 
 
 Line Operated (Total) 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 6,087.4 
 
 6,188.9 
 
 6,420.0 
 
 6,683.6 
 
 6,665.5 
 
 North Dakota . .. 
 
 1,184.2 
 
 1,184.7 
 
 1,310.8 
 
 1,453.9 
 
 1,485.8 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 145.2 
 
 146.2 
 
 145.3 
 
 144.8 
 
 146.3 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 1,047.1 
 
 1,048.5 
 
 1,055.2 
 
 1,053.9 
 
 1,053.8 
 
 Montana . 
 
 1,492.0 
 
 1,523.6 
 
 1,538.5 
 
 1,577.2 
 
 1,561.1 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 343.4 
 
 345.0 
 
 344.2 
 
 342.5 
 
 340.2 
 
 Washington . 
 
 1,779.2 
 
 1,880.5 
 
 1,965.5 
 
 1,977.8 
 
 1,945.3 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 96.3 
 
 60.1 
 
 60.4 
 
 59.9 
 
 59.1 
 
 Manitoba . 
 
 
 
 
 73.7 
 
 73.7 
 
 
 
 
 
 * The apparent decrease in miles of line owned in 1913 is due to the inclusion 
 of 530 miles of line formerly reported as “owned” in column “Line of proprietary 
 companies.” This 530 miles included 143.56 miles of the Mo. River Ry. Co., 
 91.35 miles of the Western Dakota Ry. Co., 170.66 miles of the Clearwater 
 Shortline Ry., and other short branch lines. In 1914 these were again classified 
 as “owned” line and the “Line of proprietary companies” fell to .25, miles owned 
 by the Duluth Union Depot Co. 
 
 t 355.6 miles leased to government of Manitoba. 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 59 
 
 TABLE 10-B— Continued 
 
 NORTHERN PACI FIC—TRACKAGE BY STATES AND TAXES 
 
 Line Operated and Owned 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 5,831.0 
 
 5,834.3 
 
 6,.062.3 
 
 5,722.9 
 
 6,243.2 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 1,183.6 
 
 1,184.1 
 
 1,310.2 
 
 1,273.2 
 
 1,485.2 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 144.6 
 
 145.8 
 
 144.4 
 
 143.8 
 
 145.4 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 1,032.7 
 
 1,033.8 
 
 1,040.1 
 
 1,029.4 
 
 1,039.1 
 
 Montana. 
 
 1,309.2 
 
 1,421.3 
 
 1,433.9 
 
 1,378.9 
 
 1,466.0 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 343.1 
 
 343.2 
 
 342.2 
 
 207.0 
 
 338.4 
 
 Washington . 
 
 1,646.9 
 
 1,652.5 
 
 1,737.6 
 
 1,633.7 
 
 1,713.0 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 89.9 
 
 53.6 
 
 53.8 
 
 53.6 
 
 52.9 
 
 Manitoba . 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 3.2 
 
 3.2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Line Operated 
 
 Proprietary and Leased Lines 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 194.6 
 
 195.1 
 
 195.0 
 
 726.3 
 
 180.1 
 
 186.9 
 
 North Dakota 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 
 
 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 
 
 
 9.4 
 
 157.5 
 
 133.4 
 
 245.8 
 
 .2 
 
 56.2 
 
 Montana . 
 
 64.0 
 
 64.4 
 
 64.3 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 Washington . 
 
 130.7 
 
 130.6 
 
 130.7 
 
 130.5 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 Manitoba . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
60 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 TABLE 10-B— Continued 
 
 NORTHERN PACI FIC—TRACKAGE BY STATES AND TAXES 
 
 Total Owned 
 
 Plus Proprietary and Leased Lines 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 6,413.4 
 
 6,453.1 
 
 6,678.5 
 
 6,872.1 
 
 6,943.6 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 1,183.6 
 
 1,184.1 
 
 1,310.2 
 
 1,453.3 
 
 1,491.5 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 144.6 
 
 145.8 
 
 144.4 
 
 143.9 
 
 145.4 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 1,032.7 
 
 1,033.8 
 
 1,040.1 
 
 1,038.8 
 
 1,0?3.1 
 
 Montana. 
 
 1,468.2 
 
 1,499.8 
 
 1,510.7 
 
 1,550.5 
 
 1,531.4 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 343.1 
 
 343.2 
 
 342.2 
 
 340.4 
 
 338.4 
 
 Washington . 
 
 1,795.7 
 
 1,801.2 
 
 1,886.4 
 
 1,897.6 
 
 1,916.0 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 89.9 
 
 89.5 
 
 88.9 
 
 88.7 
 
 89.1 
 
 Manitoba . 
 
 355.6 
 
 355.6 
 
 355.6 
 
 358.8 
 
 358.8 
 
 State Taxes Accrued 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 $2,547,835 
 
 $3,622,000 
 
 $3,739,079 
 
 $3,999,028 
 
 $5,030,584 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 $329,657 
 
 $431,766 
 
 $445,344 
 
 $469,957 
 
 $521,453 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 32,966 
 
 39,876 
 
 38,977 
 
 41,107 
 
 52,088 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 578,684 
 
 616,187 
 
 663,993 
 
 866,730 
 
 923.621 
 
 Montana. 
 
 428,354 
 
 615,806 
 
 652,928 
 
 696,820 
 
 741,329 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 82,314 
 
 144,046 
 
 224,384 
 
 200,874 
 
 348,259 
 
 Washington . 
 
 1,070,903 
 
 1,543,255 
 
 1,498,011 
 
 1,426,446 
 
 2,193,376 
 
 Oregon . 
 
 24,744 
 
 29,612 
 
 32,537 
 
 29,461 
 
 29,142 
 
 Manitoba. 
 
 
 
 
 5,976 
 
 14,977 
 
 Corporation Tax, 
 
 
 
 
 U. S. 
 
 
 201,197 
 
 182,492 
 
 261,327 
 
 206,078 
 
 Taxes on Outside 
 
 
 Offices . 
 
 182 
 
 254 
 
 413 
 
 280 
 
 260 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 61 
 
 TABLE 10-C 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY- 
 TRACKAGE BY STATES AND TAXES 
 
 Line Owned 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 2.434.7 
 
 1.110.7 
 248.8 
 353.0 
 688.6 
 
 33.6 
 
 2,555.4 
 
 1,110.7 
 
 239.8 
 
 371.7 
 
 799.6 
 
 33.6 
 
 2,718.9 
 
 1,109.8 
 
 239.5 
 
 378.9 
 
 957.7 
 
 35.6 
 
 2,921.6 
 
 1,240.8 
 
 239.5 
 420.2 
 
 987.6 
 33.6 
 
 3,019.9 
 
 1,269.4 
 
 240.4 
 
 420.2 
 
 999.2 
 33.6 
 57.2 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 Michigan . 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 South Dakota ... 
 Montana . 
 
 Illinois . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Line Operated (Total)* 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 2,395.0 
 
 3,529.0 
 
 3,773.4 
 
 3,976.0 
 
 4,101.6 
 
 North Dakota 
 
 1,110.7 
 
 1,110.7 
 
 1,109.8 
 
 1,240.8 
 
 1,269.4 
 
 Michigan . 
 
 250.7 
 
 248.6 
 
 248.3 
 
 248.3 
 
 248.2 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 353.0 
 
 1,316.2 
 
 1,336.7 
 
 1,378.0 
 
 1,394.3 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 646.9 
 
 756.8 
 
 981.9 
 
 1,012.3 
 
 1,042.4 
 
 South Dakota ... 
 Montana . 
 
 33.6 
 
 33.6 
 
 33.6 
 
 33.6 
 
 33.6 
 
 57.2 
 
 Illinois . 
 
 
 63.0 
 
 63.1 
 
 63.1 
 
 56.6 
 
 Line Operated and Owned 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 | 1913 1 1914 
 
 1 1 
 
 Total . 
 
 2,375.8 
 
 1,110.7 
 
 248.7 
 353.0 
 
 629.7 
 33.6 
 
 2,472.1 
 
 1.110.7 
 
 239.8 
 
 371.7 
 
 716.2 
 
 33.6 
 
 Same as “Line Owned” 
 
 tt a 
 
 a a 
 
 a a 
 
 a a 
 
 a a 
 
 a a 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 Michigan . 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 South Dakota ... 
 Montana . 
 
 Illinois . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * A small amount of line is operated under trackage rights: in 1914, 64.2 
 miles, of which none was in North Dakota. No line of proprietary companies. 
 No leased line. Wisconsin Central, operated under contract, pays its own taxes. 
 
62 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 TABLE 10-C—Continued 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY- 
 TRACKAGE BY STATES AND TAXES 
 
 Operated Under Contract 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 191$ 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 
 1,038.0 
 
 984.6 
 
 984.6 
 
 1,017.5 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 
 
 
 Michigan . 
 
 
 6.9 
 
 6.9 
 
 6.9 
 
 6.9 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 
 944.3 
 
 920.8 
 
 920.8 
 
 935.8 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 
 23.7 
 
 8.2 
 
 8.2 
 
 26.2 
 
 South Dakota 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Illinois . 
 
 
 63.1 
 
 48.7 
 
 48.7 
 
 48.7 
 
 
 Taxes Accrued- 
 
 —State 
 
 
 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Total . 
 
 $873,093 
 
 $908,079 
 
 $1,086,966 
 
 $1,235,088 
 
 $1,144,317 
 
 North Dakota ... 
 
 $301,000 
 
 $338,944 
 
 $362,421 
 
 $377,330 
 
 $366,647 
 
 Michigan . 
 
 117,000 
 
 136,444 
 
 137,746 
 
 138,340 
 
 126,380 
 
 Wisconsin . 
 
 133.000 
 
 128,287 
 
 124,853 
 
 154,357 
 
 172,150 
 
 Minnesota . 
 
 206,430 
 
 237,791 
 
 310,245 
 
 410,262 
 
 475,591 
 
 South Dakota ... 
 
 3,200 
 
 3,223 
 
 3,429 
 
 3,525 
 
 3,549 
 
 Taxes over-estimat- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fid . 
 
 112,463 
 
 20,372 
 
 148,272 
 
 $151,275 
 
 
 
 
 $ Marked “Tax accruals not paid.” 
 
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY—INCOM E ACCOUNT 
 
 IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 ✓ 
 
 C3 
 
 CO H CO CO H 
 
 Oi lO o 
 
 O N CO w t- 
 
 C<l O O* cc to *£> 
 
 oo o • <m o oq 
 
 -tf* O • CO oo N 
 
 O O • CO CO H 
 
 (N 05 H o o 
 
 (N lO OO 05 05 
 
 05 H O t- N 
 
 0^050 
 
 ^ oo oo oo 
 OO 05 LO oo 
 
 CO ^ 00 <X> 
 
 OO 05 H LO CO 00 
 (N ^ (N cq <N 05 
 H 05 IM t> <M 
 
 00 C M W 
 
 00 N W oo H 
 
 LO IQ CO ^ QO 
 
 W H t- ^ O 
 
 cq (cq ^ c— 
 
 OO H 05 cq CD 
 
 00 H CO 
 W 00 w 
 O CO 05 
 
 co j5 cq cq o 
 
 LO LO tH t>- ^ 
 
 O GO 05 lO CO 
 
 <X> t> 05 05 CO CD 
 
 2 2 w ^ 
 
 't M M M 
 
 H N t- Ol 
 
 O lO ifl ® O) 
 
 O l- iH r-l O 
 Irt 05 OH O 
 
 N H W U5 
 
 ® M t- m CO 
 
 ®oon<aO 
 
 C- N Ifl w O) 
 
 00 N 
 05 O 
 to LO 
 
 to LO O 
 
 ® N O) 
 1-1 00 05 
 
 co a n oo 
 
 'f O LO t- C- 
 
 CO O CO 03 o 
 
 O CO <M 00 CO 00 
 O 00 M CO t— ^ 
 "If to if CO °0 ®5 
 
 t- O t- LO C<1 
 
 O -f if if O 
 
 M M Ifl ifl O 
 
 lO 05 Tt< M 
 
 m io a co ifl w 
 
 if eo to lo lo 
 
 00 05 t- CO 
 
 M CO ‘fl m 
 
 G 0) 
 
 i o a 
 
 1 V O 
 
 2 d . 
 
 C ® f-< 
 
 © a g 
 G ° 3 
 M -3 3 
 
 *> 2 d 
 
 d ® aj <U 
 t- ft ft 
 © G G ^ 
 ft © © _ 
 
 o ^ ^ d 
 
 ^ © a) -S 
 
 •>, *- « O 
 
 d +j E-t 
 
 fe © © 
 
 a Z Z 
 
 d 
 
 « 
 
 © 
 
 O 
 O 
 ” G 
 d ■ r " 
 G be 
 
 & .5 
 
 O H-> 
 
 d d 
 
 * £ 
 3 §■ 
 
 d d 
 & £ 
 
 a g ^ 
 
 s_ o , , 
 ft © "£ 
 
 o w S 
 
 © 
 
 ^ 'G 
 © G 
 G G 
 
 C **—t 
 
 a § 
 
 be £ 
 C 0 
 .ft © 
 'G G 
 G m 
 
 8 
 
 o o 
 - ~ 
 
 ft -5 
 
 ft 
 
 * © 
 
 2 -a 
 
 * H 
 •o 3 
 © S 
 
 *G P 
 
 © 
 
 d d £ 
 Pi p$ 2 
 
 Q A 
 
 © © 
 £ £ 
 o o 
 
 V V 
 G G 
 
 
 S5 
 
 . 2 fi 
 
 £ ^ ° 
 
 o ® ‘ 
 
 g| g 
 
 1-1 -M © 
 
 ” G C 
 W G G 
 
 o d H 
 
 g © 
 
 0 Q 
 
 w to 
 - © 
 
 © 
 
 G 
 
 bo G 
 G O 
 
 3 3 
 
 3 G 
 O 'G 
 
 ■S5 
 2 s 
 
 g 
 
 © 
 
 bo 
 
 
 G 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 ft 
 
 G 
 
 •O 
 
 » 
 
 G 
 
 d 
 
 G 
 
 G 
 
 to 
 
 d 
 
 'C 
 
 
 ® to d 
 2 G *§ £ 
 
 is! I 1 
 
 5 o .5 ft 
 ^ ft Q 
 
 ■4-5 m I—I 4 
 
 © .rl 
 
 Z Q 
 
 o 
 
 ft 3 d o 
 
 g © o © 
 ft ^ E-* o 
 G a g 
 
 d 
 
 ffl 
 
 G> 
 
 G 
 
 O 
 
 ft 
 
 Dividends from C. B. & Q. were $4,304,540 each year ($5 less in 1909) and same amount of interest was paid on collateral trust 
 
64 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 QJ 
 
 Lil 
 
 l 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 IM Tf l> O 
 O t' M 
 © CO CO ® 
 
 CO O © -^< CO CD LD © 
 IfltOOrtt-HMN 
 nlOON'tlOGO 
 
 'f t- !C O (O cq 
 © © © ID 00 ID 
 m in re t- t- rt 
 
 o co 
 
 id 
 
 CO CO 
 
 CO CD CO CO 
 
 O IN lO ® 
 "'C Ol 05 t— 
 ID CO 1-H CO 
 
 CO 00 tH 05 CO 
 
 O O iH 05 iH 
 
 O CO CO 05 CO 
 
 05 tO i-H t-I 
 ^ 1(3 N t- 
 CD 05 00 
 
 CO©rH©lDt-lDCD 
 
 HIOHONOtIiiO 
 
 ID CO 00 05 05 
 
 CD tH t- CO CO 
 
 co co w t- oo 
 
 t"f^COOHtCIC 
 LD CO CD CO ID i—1 CO O 
 
 ID CD O CD 
 C- 05 O 05 
 -<f 00 © 00 
 
 CD O O O CD 
 
 00 CO O CO 00 
 
 00 Tf CO O CO CO 
 
 CO O CO ID 
 rf CD O CO CD 
 
 O ID h 00 N CO O 
 
 OO CO 05 05 t— CO 00 
 
 t- ID O 7-1 O C- 00 
 
 O h CO 
 t- -cf CO 
 00 ID CO 
 
 'f -*C CO -'*< 05 CO 
 
 O H ® l- 00 CD a 
 CO U) 00 If OC OO H 
 
 C CD 
 
 i o a 
 
 I V O 
 
 <d d . 
 
 C U >1 
 g <D ~ V 
 ° a g 3 
 
 fi °=j § 
 
 s ^ s 
 
 tj ® 2 ® 
 
 i* 3 3 y? 
 <V 3 C 
 ft « 0) - 
 
 o > > d 
 
 <D <D V 
 
 >5 U h P 
 
 3 -m -i_> H 
 
 te 0> <D 
 
 B £ 
 
 0 « 
 
 M 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 3 t»0 
 
 Sh C 
 
 o £ 
 O 
 
 3 £ 
 
 X 2 
 
 5 & 
 
 && 
 j* I 
 '3 '3 
 
 pi Pi 
 
 01 H 
 
 s g 
 
 £ 3 
 
 ^ O <u 
 
 3 o> c 
 
 5 W 3 
 o _ o 
 09 ^ O 
 
 'O "- 1 
 0 ) 3 
 'H g 3 
 3 § S 
 
 s s & 
 
 O O 35 
 
 TS -3 
 
 3 £ 
 
 £ £ o u 
 
 3 d 
 
 0) O 'll £ 
 
 S s *5 % 
 8 8-S- 
 £ £ % < 
 
 ® 6 *= 
 
 III 
 
 h - - 
 8 3 
 o 7, 
 
 §§ 
 
 ® O 
 c 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 65 
 
 M t- OO ffl N 
 
 O IS ® N 
 C- O O 05 
 
 Tf eq ® oo 
 
 CO U5 
 Ol 05 
 UO C\| 
 
 lO OJ 05 CO 00 
 
 ffl O O) t* M 
 
 IO « l- Or 
 
 00 M N IO 
 
 O CO IO 
 CO CO OS 
 H CO N 
 
 t- o co t- ® 
 
 co o* CO O -"tc 
 
 iH 'cF CO O rH 
 
 oo o co oo cn 
 
 W H cq IO M 
 
 cq cq h io ® 
 
 ° co d 
 
 G’V'Z 
 
 o £ a 
 
 5 -a 2 
 m a 
 o .5 a 
 a Ci < 
 
 Vl 1-1 < 
 
 s 
 
 p. a 
 
 < § 
 
MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAI LW A Y—I NCOM E ACCOUNT 
 
 66 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 o 00 00 CD iH 
 
 CO H ^ oo OO 
 
 lO O H 05 H 
 
 (M t>- O 00 tH 
 t - <N O 05 O 
 
 00 t- CD <M CO 
 
 OO CO H (N 00 
 
 ^ H OO (N 
 N N O H 
 H CO 05 
 
 LO CD H CO 00 
 
 (M 00 H L- CO 
 
 -h LO 00 CD 
 
 1 s 
 
 2 d 
 
 o ® 
 
 O Q, 
 
 S O 
 
 be 
 
 C ^ 
 
 d £ 
 
 a) n 
 
 a CD 
 
 O | 
 
 II 
 
 E 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 «{ c 
 
 d 
 
 3 bo 
 
 S .5 
 
 o +j 
 
 d ?3 
 
 3 > 
 
 2 « 
 
 * P5 
 
 ®(PH« 
 
 | £ ®S O 
 
 13 & & 
 
 ^ o £ £ 
 
 O H ^ H 
 
 H CD OO ID LO 
 
 H CO IN r-i ^ 
 
 O O 
 <M Tf 
 
 CO CO 
 
 n CD CO 
 -t ^ IN 
 M OO 00 
 
 cd <m 
 
 00 CD 
 N 00 O 
 CM Oi LO 
 
 t-h lo 05 oq o 
 
 O ID CO 05 05 05 
 CD 00 00 LO 00 CM 
 
 O h LO CD OO CD 
 
 00 05 LO t- 
 
 O lO IN 00 
 
 05 05 CO 05 ^ 
 
 O 00 CO rH o 
 
 L- 05 IN CD (N 
 
 00 CD CO O Tj* 
 
 CO 05 IN CD ^ 
 
 O 00 CO O CM 
 
 00 05 ^(NTf 
 
 05 (N 't H 00 
 
 00 O CD LO LO 
 CO 00 05 ^ o 05 
 LO CO CO CO t- rH 
 
 CO in h h O 05 
 
 rf 05 N H OO 
 CM O <M CD Gw 
 
 £ G 
 
 0 ) 
 
 I* tf 
 
 'd 
 
 CD c 
 
 £ 3 
 o ^ 
 
 ° G 
 G G 
 
 KH O 
 £ 
 G © 
 
 <D ^ 
 
 rO G 
 
 o 
 
 > o 
 
 S c 
 
 G 
 
 O 
 
 •r-* <D 
 
 be S 
 c ° 
 
 O W 
 o -a 
 c d 
 
 t-H o 
 
 - o 
 V 73 
 
 o § 
 H 
 
 o <x> 
 
 si 
 
 i o 
 
 5 c 
 
 !w <u « 
 
 CO 
 
 C ^ to 
 
 bo c 
 
 c .2 
 
 11 
 
 o T3 
 
 LO CD 
 LO <M 
 
 G a 
 
 o 3 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 cb c 
 
 0)Oc 
 
 o ^ 
 § c 
 
 33 o 
 
 
 s ^ 
 o o 
 
 £ O «! 
 
 S'g 
 
 * & 
 
 V-o 
 
 o o 
 a) c 
 S o ^ 
 o S -2 
 g-3 fc 
 S o d 
 ^ ft n 
 
 « 3 
 £ Q 
 
 Entered on wrong line in Report. 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 67 
 
 TABLE 12-A 
 
 GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY 
 
 General Balance Sheet—Assets 
 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Property Investment— 
 
 l. Road and Equipment to 1907— 
 
 Road . 
 
 $230,947,771 
 
 $230,947,771 
 
 $230,947,771 
 
 Equipment . 
 
 44,084,374 
 
 44,084,374 
 
 44,084,374 
 
 Total . 
 
 $275,032,145 
 
 $275,032,145 
 
 $275,032,145 
 
 Since 1907- 
 
 Road . 
 
 $47,197,968 
 
 $63,740,166 
 
 $72,298,266 
 
 Equipment . 
 
 17,112,519 
 
 24,675,711 
 
 28,116,917 
 
 General Expenditures . 
 
 1,200,499 
 
 1,491,220 
 
 1,887,576 
 
 Total . 
 
 $65,510,986 
 
 $89,907,096 
 
 $102,302,760 
 
 Total Road and Equipment. 
 
 $340,543,131 
 
 $364,939,241 
 
 $377,334,905 
 
 Less reserve for depreciation. 
 
 21,552,810 
 
 23,594,984 
 
 25,804,746 
 
 Net Total Road and Equipment. 
 
 318,990,321 
 
 341,344,257 
 
 351,530,158 
 
 2. Securities— 
 
 Stocks of proprietary and affiliat¬ 
 ed companies, pledged. 
 
 31,850,538 
 
 31,481,049 
 
 33,557,338 
 
 Bonds of G. N. Co. pledged. 
 
 14,106,000 
 
 14,106,000 
 
 14,106,000 
 
 Stocks of proprietary and affiliat¬ 
 ed companies unpledged . 
 
 1,704,102 
 
 3,194,100 
 
 3,104,100 
 
 Total Securities . 
 
 $47,660,641 
 
 $48,781,149 
 
 $50,767,439 
 
 3. Other Investments— 
 
 Advances to proprietary and affil¬ 
 iated companies . 
 
 $1,646,759 
 
 $449,704 
 
 $148,451 
 
 Physical Property . 
 
 3,985,622 
 
 5,111,344 
 
 4,767,020 
 
 Securities, pledged . 
 
 109,764,810 
 
 109,764,810| 
 
 111,514,810 
 
 Securities, unpledged . 
 
 31,192,860 
 
 31,265,328 
 
 33,314.608 
 
 Total other Investments. 
 
 $146,590,051 
 
 $146,591,186 
 
 $149,744,888 
 
 Working Assets— 
 
 Cash . 
 
 $12,829,135 
 
 $5,116,814 
 
 $5,507,710 
 
 Securities issued or assumed—■ 
 Held in treasury . 
 
 16,832,250 
 
 28,156,244 
 
 35,691,554 
 
 Marketable securities . 
 
 24.980,873 
 
 27,618,412) 
 
 28,918.547 
 
 All other. 
 
 17,947,085 
 
 19,977,635 
 
 20,725,266 
 
 Total working assets . 
 
 $72,616,343 
 
 $80,869,105 
 
 $90,843,077 
 
 Accrued Income not due . 
 
 406,667 
 
 3,538,319 
 
 
 491,400 
 
 8,110,506 
 
 Deferred Debit Items . 
 
 3,541,066 
 
 Total Assets . 
 
 I $589,802,341 
 
 | $621,126,764 
 
 ! $651,487,468 
 
68 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 TABLE 12-A—Continued 
 
 GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY 
 
 General Balance Sheet—Liabilities 
 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Stock— 
 
 Held by Company. 
 
 $9,250 
 
 $9,250 
 
 $146,800 
 
 Not held by Company. 
 
 $209,981,420 
 
 $209,981,420 
 
 $230,819,320 
 
 Receipts for Installments paid. 
 
 80 
 
 12,958,626 
 
 7,854,373 
 
 Total . 
 
 $209,990,750 
 
 $222,949,296 
 
 $238,820,493 
 
 Mortgage, Bonded, and Secured Debt— 
 Mortgage Bonds— 
 
 Held by Company . 
 
 $30,929,000 
 
 $42,175,000 
 
 $49,646,000 
 
 Not held by Company. 
 
 143,757,909 
 
 143,655,909 
 
 143,478,909 
 
 Total . 
 
 $174,686,909 
 
 $185,830,909 
 
 $193,124,909 
 
 Collateral Trust Bonds . 
 
 107,613,500 
 
 107,613,500 
 
 107,613,500 
 
 Total Funded Debt . 
 
 Working Liabilities . 
 
 $282,300,409 
 
 $18,892,040 
 
 $293,444,409 
 
 $15,872,186 
 
 $300,738,409 
 
 $18,541,523 
 
 Accrued Liabilities not Due. 
 
 1,666,492 
 
 2,286,359 j 
 
 2,206,787 
 
 Deferred Credit Items . 
 
 1,110,325 
 
 1,296,595 
 
 1,483,892 
 
 Appropriated Surplus— 
 
 Additions to property since 1907 through 
 income . 
 
 11,862,129 
 
 15,081,189 
 
 18,631,599 
 
 Reserves from income or surplus. 
 
 6,798,062 
 
 8,721,599 
 
 5,965,521 
 
 Total . 
 
 $18,660,191 
 
 $23,802,788 
 
 $24,597,120 
 
 Profit and Loss, Surplus. 
 
 57,182,134 
 
 61,474,131 
 
 65,099,244 
 
 Total Liabilities . 
 
 $539,802,341 
 
 $621,126,764 
 
 $651,487,468 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 69 
 
 TABLE 12-B 
 
 NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY 
 
 General Balance Sheet—Assets 
 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Property Investment— 
 
 1. Road and Equipment to 1907— 
 
 
 
 
 Road (N. P. estate) . 
 
 $315,838,962 
 
 $315,838,962 
 
 $315,838, 
 
 Equipment . 
 
 37,295,670 
 
 37,295,670 
 
 37,295, 
 
 Total . 
 
 $353,134,632 
 
 $353,134,632 
 
 $353,134, 
 
 Since 1907— 
 
 
 
 
 Road . 
 
 $45,935,417 
 
 $52,834,469 
 
 $93,550, 
 
 Equipment . 
 
 11,983,502 
 
 19,075,529 
 
 73,113, 
 
 General Expenditures . 
 
 321,986 
 
 385,243 
 
 412, 
 
 Land Department, current assets 
 
 4.233,049 
 
 5,691,526 
 
 7,327, 
 
 Total . 
 
 $62,473,955 
 
 $77,986,766 
 
 $124,403, 
 
 Total Road and Equipment. 
 
 $415,608,586 
 
 $431,121,398 
 
 $477,537, 
 
 Less reserve for depreciation.... 
 
 11,201,799 
 
 12,263,012 
 
 13,491, 
 
 Net total Road and Equipment. 
 
 404,406,787 
 
 418,958,386 
 
 464,046, 
 
 2. Securities— 
 
 Of proprietary and affiliated Com¬ 
 
 
 
 
 panies, unpledged— 
 
 
 
 
 Stocks . 
 
 $23,274,431 
 
 $25,442,831 
 
 $22,370, 
 
 Bonds . 
 
 23,345,519 
 
 22,314,425 
 
 22,315, 
 
 Total Securities . 
 
 $46,619,949 
 
 $47,757,256 
 
 $44,685, 
 
 3. Other Investments— 
 
 Advanced to proprietary and affil¬ 
 
 
 
 
 iated companies . 
 
 $22,665,563 
 
 $22,642,067 
 
 $958, 
 
 Physical Property . 
 
 1,373,800 
 
 1,755,184 
 
 2,004, 
 
 Securities Pledged . 
 
 Securities Unpledged . 
 
 111,609,810 
 
 111,609,810 
 
 111,609, 
 
 227, 
 
 $114,800, 
 
 Total other Investments . 
 
 $135,649,172 
 
 $136,007,060 
 
 Working Assets— 
 
 
 
 
 Cash . 
 
 $5,566,568 
 
 $3,457,972 
 
 $6,595, 
 
 Securities issued or assumed— 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Held in treasury . 
 
 17,434,500 
 
 13,560,500 
 
 9,203, 
 
 Marketable Securities . 
 
 14,959,511 
 
 12,065,080 
 
 12,069, 
 
 All other. 
 
 16,442,041 
 
 20,441,673 
 
 20,225, 
 
 Total Working Assets . 
 
 $54,402,620' 
 
 $49,525,225 
 
 $48,094, 
 
 Accrued Income not due. 
 
 596,268 
 
 160,185 
 
 569, 
 
 Deferred Debit Items . 
 
 6,445,359 
 
 6,403,707 
 
 7,358, 
 
 Total Assets . 
 
 $648,120,156 
 
 $658,811,819 
 
 $679,553, 
 
 4 
 
 8,902 
 
 5,670 
 
 4,632 
 
 0,121 
 
 3,772 
 
 2,403 
 
 7,032 
 
 3,329 
 
 7,961 
 
 1,812 
 
 5,149 
 
 0,251 
 
 5,275 
 
 5,526 
 
 8,701 
 
 4,811 
 
 9,810 
 
 7,100 
 
 0,422 
 
 5,904 
 
 3,500 
 
 9,080 
 
 5,539 
 
 4,023 
 
 9,672 
 
 8,134 
 
 3,926 
 
70 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 TABLE 12-B—Continued 
 
 NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY 
 
 General Balance Sheet—Liabilities 
 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Stock— 
 
 
 
 
 Held by the Company . 
 
 $54,000 
 
 $54,000 
 
 $54,000 
 
 Not held by the Company. 
 
 247,944,400’ 
 
 247,944,400 
 
 247,944,400 
 
 Receipts for installments paid. 
 
 1,600 
 
 1,600 
 
 1,600 
 
 Total . 
 
 $248,000,000 
 
 $248,000,000 
 
 $248,000,000 
 
 Mortgage, Bonded, and Secured Debt— 
 
 
 
 
 Mortgage Bonds— 
 
 
 
 
 Held by Company . 
 
 $15,241,500 
 
 $12,235,500 
 
 $7,878,500 
 
 Not held by Company . 
 
 176,124,000 
 
 180,117,000 
 
 186,859,000 
 
 Total . 
 
 $191,365,500 
 
 $192,352,500 
 
 $194,737,500 
 
 Collateral Trust Bonds— 
 
 
 
 
 Held by Company . 
 
 $2,139,000 
 
 $1,271,000 
 
 $1,271,000 
 
 Not held by Company . 
 
 105,474,500 
 
 106,342,500 
 
 106,342,500 
 
 Total . 
 
 $107,613,500 
 
 $107,613,500 
 
 $107,613,500 
 
 Total Funded Debt . 
 
 $298,979,000 
 
 $299,966,000 
 
 $302,351,000 
 
 Working Liabilities . 
 
 8,345,367 
 
 11,492,032 
 
 19,876,369 
 
 Accrued Liabilities not due. 
 
 6,801,569 
 
 7,014,954 
 
 7,490,544 
 
 Deferred Credit Items . 
 
 191,264 
 
 2,237,285 
 
 5,133,725 
 
 Appropriated Surplus— 
 
 
 
 
 Additions to property since 1907 
 
 
 
 
 (through income) . 
 
 
 
 5,643,200 
 
 Reserves from income or surplus. 
 
 . 5,542,517 
 
 6,401,778 
 
 6,286,628 
 
 Total . 
 
 $5,542,517 
 
 $6,401,778 
 
 $11,928,828 
 
 Profit and Loss Surplus . 
 
 80,260,438 
 
 83,699,770 
 
 84,772,460 
 
 Total Liabilities . 
 
 $648,120,156 
 
 $658,811,819 
 
 $679,553,926 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 71 
 
 TABLE 12-C 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY 
 
 General Balance Sheet—Assets 
 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Property Investment— 
 
 
 
 
 1. Road and Equipment to 1907— 
 
 
 
 
 Road . 
 
 $62,090,906 
 
 $63,020,149 
 
 $63,020,149 
 
 Equipment . 
 
 13,887,941 
 
 13,834,144 
 
 13,834,144 
 
 Total . 
 
 $75,978,847 
 
 $76,854,293 
 
 $76,854,293 
 
 Since 1907— 
 
 
 
 
 Road . 
 
 $20,508,856 
 
 $26,224,638 
 
 $29,088,117 
 
 Equipment . 
 
 2,837,061 
 
 6,685,019 
 
 7,025,417 
 
 General Expenditures . 
 
 759,831 
 
 807,114 
 
 - 832,339 
 
 Total . 
 
 $24,105,747 
 
 $33,716,770 
 
 $36,945,873 
 
 Total Road and Equipment. 
 
 $100,084,595 
 
 $110,571,064 
 
 $113,800,166 
 
 Less reserve for depreciation.... 
 
 1,461,477 
 
 1,592,246 
 
 2,275,693 
 
 Net total Road and Equipment. 
 
 $98,623,118 
 
 $108,978,818 
 
 $111,524,473 
 
 2. Securities— 
 
 
 
 
 Of proprietary and affiliated com¬ 
 
 
 
 
 panies, stocks pledged . 
 
 *$11,148,700 
 
 $11,169,000 
 
 $11,169,000 
 
 Of proprietary and affiliated com¬ 
 
 
 
 
 panies, stocks unpledged. 
 
 4,557,811 
 
 5,035,028 
 
 5,325,028 
 
 Of proprietary and affiliated com¬ 
 
 
 
 
 panies, funded debt unpledged.. 
 
 859,637 
 
 828,630 
 
 2,075,432 
 
 Total Securities . ... 
 
 *$16,566,148 
 
 $17,032,657 
 
 $18,570,060 
 
 3. Other Investments— 
 
 
 
 
 Advances to proprietary and affil¬ 
 
 
 
 
 iated companies . 
 
 $5,547,432 
 
 
 
 Physical property . 
 
 244,633 
 
 2,410,245 
 
 2,400,339 
 
 Securities, pledged and unpledged 
 
 25,200 
 
 25,351 
 
 25,351 
 
 Total other Investments . 
 
 $5,817,432 
 
 $2,435,596 
 
 $2,425,690 
 
 Working Assets— 
 
 
 
 
 Cash . 
 
 $5,271,256 
 
 $3,357,524 
 
 $4,479,428 
 
 Securities issued or assumed— 
 
 
 
 
 Held in treasury . 
 
 10,000 
 
 2,691,000 
 
 
 Marketable Securities . 
 
 8,700 
 
 133,700 
 
 8,700 
 
 All other . 
 
 5,342,644 
 
 5,784,025 
 
 4,713,827 
 
 Total Working Assets . 
 
 $10,632,600 
 
 $11,966,249 
 
 $9,201,955 
 
 Accrued Income not due . 
 
 123,507 
 
 123,951 
 
 128,782 
 
 Deferred Debit Items . 
 
 3,467,154 
 
 3,389,992 
 
 3,310,346 
 
 Total Assets . 
 
 $124,081,258 
 
 $143,927,264 
 
 $145,161,305 
 
 Add.... 
 
 *11,148,700 
 
 
 
 
 $135,229,958 
 
 
 
 * The item of $11,148,700, preferred stock of the Wisconsin Central, does 
 not appear in balance sheet of 1912, but is shown for 1912 in Compar. Bal. Sheet 
 of 1913. See also page 48. Report of 1912. Totals charged accordingly. 
 
72 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 TABLE 12-C—Continued 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY 
 
 General Balance Sheet—Liabilities 
 
 T 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Stock— 
 
 
 
 
 
 $25,206,800 
 
 12,603,400 
 
 $25,206,800 
 
 12,603,400 
 
 12,336 
 
 $37,822,536 
 
 $25,206,800 
 
 12,603,400 
 
 12,366 
 
 $37,822,536 
 
 Preferred . 
 
 Premiums realized . 
 
 Total (None held by Company).... 
 
 $37,810,200 
 
 Mortgage, Bonded, and Secured Debt— 
 
 
 
 
 Mortgage Bonds— 
 
 
 
 
 "Held bv Compa.nv. 
 
 10,000 
 
 64,205,000 
 
 $64,215,000 
 
 2,691,000 
 
 64,147,000 
 
 $66,838,000 
 
 
 Not held by Company. 
 
 68,785,000 
 
 $68,785,000 
 
 Total . 
 
 Collateral Trust bonds (not held by 
 
 Company) . 
 
 $$11,148,700 
 
 $11,169,000 
 
 $11,169,600 
 
 Equipment trust obligations (not held 
 
 by company) . 
 
 4,051,000 
 
 $$79,414,700 
 
 $5,424,354 
 
 600,583 
 
 31,650 
 
 6,695,000 
 
 $84,792,000 
 
 $5,744,450 
 
 749,628 
 
 7,057,000 
 
 $87,011,600 
 
 $4,735,386 
 
 643,287 
 
 371,606 
 
 Total Funded Debt . 
 
 Working Liabilities . 
 
 Accrued Liabilities not due . 
 
 Deferred Credit Items . 
 
 226,868 
 
 Appropriated Surplus— 
 
 Not spenifica.llv invested . 
 
 241,125 
 
 11,707,346 
 
 $124,081,258 
 
 11,148,700 
 
 $$135,229,958 
 
 213,314 
 
 14,468,468 
 
 $143,927,264 
 
 
 Profit and Loss Surplus . 
 
 14,576,890 
 
 $145,161,305 
 
 Total Liabilities . 
 
 Add.... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $ Leased line certificates for Wisconsin Central preferred stock, $11,148,700, 
 not shown in balance sheet in state report. 
 
Income and Operating Statistics 
 of 
 
 Great Northern, Northern Pacific and 
 Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie 
 
 Railways 
 
GREAT NORTHERN R Al LWAY—INCOM E AND OPERATING STATISTICS 
 
 74 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAIEROADS 
 
 CD 3 
 
 bo T 
 d 05 
 
 <D OS 
 
 > rH 
 
 O t- CD 
 CD ^ CD W 
 00 CD CO 05 
 
 00 Oi 05 CO 
 
 “O oo LO t>- 
 ^ (M ID 
 - - - t> 
 
 O100ID)CD00C0^00t>(NlD) 
 h ID ID ID H • • in 
 
 Oi^'thOOJINMOOOOO 
 - •» o - - eq co - <m rH 
 
 00 <M rH O ^ CD 05 CD 
 
 CD CO 00 
 ^ CD Q H 
 CO 05 o c- 
 
 i-H rH rH (M CD 
 
 CD <N H l> D 
 
 r- H 05 CM 
 
 - - - - in 
 
 m m m ^ 
 
 (NWCO-^cOH^CDOilD 
 CD 05 CD OO t> CD • • O 
 
 l-^^t-ON(NlNOOO 
 - - ~0 - - (M CD - <M 
 
 co <m tH o d— in cd o 
 
 H CD H IM CO 
 
 05 co in b- t>- 
 
 w N 05 (M 
 
 ^ o in ^ ^ 
 
 os oi t> oo oo 
 
 ^ rt< t- rH 
 
 oq O 00 OO 
 
 - - - 00 
 
 CO oo CD CO 
 
 TCDCDincOt-OCDIDCDT 
 rl O 05 CD O ID • • ^ 
 
 ooin^NcDOOco^^t-rf 
 
 ► - - O - - <M co ►N 00 
 
 OO oq rH O ^ CD CO CD 
 
 CM 
 
 OO 
 
 co o co in 
 cm oo in t>- 
 CD> 05 o oo 
 
 o oo o co 
 
 O T-H in CO HinCDDDHDHb-^CO 
 
 C<1 OO O CM CD O CD D (N • • rH 
 
 rHOin • COCOH<^TPCDHHCOl>t- 
 
 - - -05 - - - O - -(MO - <M CD 
 
 t> H CO H (M H O CD H CD in CO 
 
 CD O CO CD 
 
 IM rf T H- rf 
 
 05 (M CO CD 
 
 - - - 05 
 
 in 05 t'* co co 
 
 ^ 00 CO h 
 
 h oo co in 
 
 05 co rH 
 
 02 3 
 
 p s? 
 
 <d 
 
 P 
 
 G rrj 
 > * 
 « 2 
 
 t>- (M <M <M 
 
 <N ^ 05 IN D 
 
 oq t- cd co 
 
 00 CD (M O O 
 - O - - <M <M 
 
 O <M rH O CD in 
 
 H H (N in o 
 
 t>- O O H oq 
 
 h o in oo oo 
 
 - - - o ~ 
 
 <M <M rH O in 
 
 ai 
 
 p 
 
 G 
 
 g d 
 
 « 2 
 
 p ft 
 
 o> 
 
 a w 
 
 31 
 
 3 su 
 
 0) 
 
 si a 
 
 02 
 
 ft C 
 
 0. 3 
 
 p . 
 G (p 
 
 02 (U 
 
 ^ bo 
 
 
 02 
 
 o 
 
 bo 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 02 
 
 <w 
 
 O 
 
 bo 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 02 
 
 ■-D 
 
 02 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 
 <D 
 
 
 3 
 
 p 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 02 
 
 c 
 
 bo 
 
 a 
 
 d 
 
 02 
 
 a 
 
 02 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 00 
 
 p 
 
 1 
 
 d 
 
 02 
 
 a 
 
 02 
 
 o 
 
 <D 
 
 G 
 
 3 
 
 d 
 
 Si 
 
 02 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 02 
 
 Si 
 
 02 
 
 d 
 
 Q 
 
 d 
 
 V 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 02 
 
 02 
 
 j 
 
 02 
 
 02 
 
 &H 
 
 
 P 4 
 
 Oh 
 
 
 02 
 
 Ch 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 & 
 
 0 ) 
 
 Si 
 
 ft 
 
 
 0 ) 
 
 
 
 SI 
 
 a 
 
 
 02 
 
 
 
 
 L c 
 <12 0) 
 W > 
 f 02 
 £ tf 
 
 be 
 
 C £ 
 
 ® § 
 
 02 ‘S 
 
 02 
 
 s ® a 
 
 P3 <u 
 
 'o s 3 
 3 .a g 
 ajf 
 
 <12 02 Ml 
 
 ft a 3 
 02 
 
 02 02 U 
 
 bo bo ^ 
 
 02 <12 bO 
 > > d 
 < < V 
 > 
 < 
 
 02 
 
 ?i 
 
 02 
 
 ft £ 
 
 02 02 ^ 
 
 11 z 
 
 02 
 
 P ^ ft 
 
 ? 'S 2 -a 
 
 +J T p 3 
 
 s s: 2 
 
 Q u <0 I) 
 02 q, 
 
 02 02 'C o 
 be be d 
 
 d d O 13 
 
 p c — d 
 C c «M O 
 o o o ^ 
 ’* J . <*-« 
 ^ *i « o 
 
 ■S§ g s 
 
 « 2 PP 
 
 3 £ c a 
 02 02 02 02 
 bo &c be be 
 d d d d 
 
 02 02 02 02 
 
 > r> > > 
 
 > <£ *? *** 
 
>rth 
 
 IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 75 
 
 'O t>- LO CO 
 
 r. H W CO N o 
 
 - - - o - - 
 
 CO W 05 
 
 CO Ifl H ^ w M • . COS 
 
 t>-T-H<X>OOCJiOOOC^THO 
 - - - O - •* H 00 ~ CO 
 
 05 (N H O ^ W tO rH 
 
 CO €/S- t- 
 
 o to 
 
 WOhiMOOiOHNO 
 CO H ^ 05 • . <M 
 
 HHCDC0001001005 
 - - O - - 03 Tf< 
 
 CO (N H o w ini W 
 
 Oi 
 
 00 rf OO . 
 
 00 C5 05 00 
 ' - O - - rH 
 
 ^ CO OO lO (M 
 
 >> >> ® 
 -a & 3 
 « -d o 
 
 © © CO 
 
 •S .5 -2 
 
 G cd 
 -G +d <P 
 
 to „ C 
 (D . G 
 it" o 
 
 £ ® ^ 
 
 ® -gs 
 
 < G ® 
 
 O > 
 
 1 ° 
 o ® 
 
 © © 
 g 2 a 
 S 0) 
 
 3 
 
 © 
 
 a c 
 
 © 
 
 a > 
 © ® 
 
 £ £ 
 "3 
 
 © © 
 CUD be 
 G C 
 © © 
 
 G ® 
 
 G3 .G 
 G G 
 O F* 
 
 !i 
 © - 
 a .5 
 © g 
 
 1 x 
 
 cd G 
 Ph Oh 
 
 0 I s 
 
 © <p ^ 
 
 > G u 
 C G © 
 © © a 
 © > 
 
 © © 
 
 a 2 s 
 
 G r; © 
 
 %3S$ 
 
 V) © "s 
 
 G J- 
 
 Ph k 
 
 © © 
 be be 
 G G 
 c G 
 
 a c 
 o o 
 
 a § ’S 
 
 © £ £ 
 
 be '*-< <*h 
 
 £ © © 
 © bo bo 
 >• G G 
 
 5 fe s 
 
 S ” £ 
 
 O G3 © 
 © a 
 © -g 5* 
 
 be g 
 G O gJ 
 G ~ G 
 G O 
 O O S" 
 
 -m <p ° 
 
 Sc © 
 
 £ 3 =2 
 
 Ci G G 
 
 © © © 
 
 be be be 
 
 G G G 
 © © © 
 <? 5 
 
 to 
 
 o - 
 G gs 
 be g 
 o 
 
 'G ^ 
 G 
 
 © © 
 
 s« 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 'U 
 
 4-> <D 
 
 C Cl W 
 
 0) 3 
 
 | a & 
 
 ^ .2 t* 
 
 © i- >j 
 
 a © © 
 _ a ,c 
 
 rH ^ 
 
 * £ . 
 
 r$ >5 CO 
 
 o « 
 
 p| 
 
 «? s 
 a ^ g> 
 G G 
 
 S © d 
 
 G >; m 
 G Jh 
 © G 
 > © 
 © ^ >> 
 *" G _i 
 ^ © G 
 
 O >> m 
 
 <i-i © 
 
 ■g € §5 
 
 .2 G CO 
 
 El © 
 
 CO O 
 © ' 
 
 G 
 
 © © 
 21 
 
 CO 3 
 
 bX) 
 
 12 « s “ 
 
 to d > © 
 
 be o ® -*-> 
 
 G to © , 
 
 •■8 55 
 
 bo be 
 
 * .5 .5 ~ 
 
 G 5 GJ G 
 G G bil 
 G G «G 
 
 © 
 
NORTHERN PACIFIC R Al LWAY—INCOM E AND OPERATING STATISTICS 
 
 76 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 be 7 
 
 C$ <M 
 
 CO CO O !>• CO 
 
 CC 05 H Cl 
 
 05 05 M CO 
 
 - - - - 05 
 
 ^ O O t}< CO 
 
 00 05 OO CO 
 h N CO CO H 
 
 to o <x> • 
 
 - - - - lo 
 
 OO t"- t"- CO 
 
 •«f05 00 C0050^t-(Nt- 
 H CO Tf lO CO C • • C— 
 
 H 05 • 00 t- • 05 05 05 b- 
 
 - - r-i O ^ H CO - CQ 
 
 oq o t- w 
 
 o o 
 
 <M t- 05 O O 
 
 o CO ^ 00 LO 
 
 00 oo w 
 
 ► - - - 05 
 
 ^ O (M Tj« CO 
 
 rh tH t- 
 HO O 
 
 CO 00 O 05 (N 
 
 CO LO 071 CO LO 
 
 t> rf 1C ^ 
 
 ^ CD 05 05 05 CO 
 • t- 
 
 O 05 « w 
 CO - <M 
 lO 05 CO 
 
 oo 
 
 071 
 
 05 O H CO CO 
 
 H Tf CO 05 CO 
 <M ID O CO 
 H C7| 00 lO 
 
 t> CO 00 ^ 00 
 
 . • t>- • • 
 
 05 H W C5 
 
 H ^ - 07| lO 
 
 LO U9 <M 
 
 t> o CO 
 Tf (M CO 05 OO 
 05 LO ^ rH 
 - - - - 05 
 
 ID OO H 
 
 lO ^ 
 
 t- O CO 
 
 rH t>* 05 !>• 05 CO 
 O CO ^ CO CO 
 
 OO O CO CO to 
 
 H H - 071 071 
 
 to 00 o 
 
 00 05 
 
 - - - - oo 
 
 to <M oo ^ CO 
 
 CO 00 CO 
 
 Tf CO ^ 
 
 !>» CO 
 
 O M o 10 
 
 OCOIDID005NCOID05CO 
 
 I " ® 
 
 | | 
 
 J S (D 
 
 © 0) 
 ~ ft 
 
 5 O 
 
 c 
 
 K 
 
 ill 
 
 g % g 
 
 O be o 
 
 c 
 
 “1 
 
 fc 
 
 C CO 
 
 <D +H 
 
 ° X 
 
 Vi C3 
 
 „®Q 
 
 SI 
 
 (D Ph 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 bo o 
 
 .s „ 
 
 u g 
 o> u 
 a V 
 
 O dj 
 
 ^ Ph 
 
 <u 
 
 ■2 
 
 o v 
 
 V Eh 
 
 S 6 
 
 « C 
 
 o ® 
 
 V g ft 
 
 ® J) ® 
 
 ~ ft a e 
 
 £ o «3 
 
 S3. 
 S fl d) 
 
 a ^ ft 
 5 £ £ & 
 'See" 
 
 ® 
 
 g s 
 
 “ S 
 
 ft £ 
 
 2 2 
 
 'd 
 
 45 £5 
 
 ■s .5 
 
 a a a 
 
 © 
 
 a 
 
 s| 
 
 Q S 
 
 'O Q, 
 © 2* 
 
 ■ft 3 o 
 
 «J 03 
 
 d) © © 
 
 V o o © 
 
 S fe t g 
 
 o © © © 
 
 W 02 > 
 CO 4) 
 
 V V V hS 
 
 © © © FH 
 
 be be be 
 c c C £ 
 co to to .£? 
 
 to co to d) 
 
 ej cb cS s- 
 
 Ph Ph Ph Ph 
 
 © C 
 
 11 
 
 c c 
 c c 
 o o 
 
 © >3 
 be d 
 cd o 
 G 
 
 c «« 
 o o 
 
 *■§ 
 o 
 
 © d> 
 
 a ft 
 
 © d> 
 
 be be 
 
 c3 oj 
 
 © © 
 > > 
 < < 
 
 « f £ 
 
 bp bo be ’g © 
 
 '3 T '© § -2 
 
 t- v v g g 
 
 ©H <M K Vi 
 
 d) d) © © © 
 
 bo be be be be 
 
 cC ctf ctf d cb 
 
 v u v v t. 
 
 ® dj ® ® d) 
 
 > > > > > 
 
 < <<< < 
 
IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 77 
 
 H H ® (O tfi 
 
 05 C5 t- 00 
 
 00 -H • 00 tC ® LO O 
 O - rrf 00 - M 00 
 
 o io «> co 
 
 t- KJ ^ OO !C (S CO 
 
 00 Cq 
 
 o * 
 
 O IO 
 
 05 IO 00 CO © 
 
 OC0OooaiOlS^IOU3rl 
 
 cq © © eq 05 © • • eo 
 
 cq h *ooo5 . 05 t- oo ^ eo 
 
 - -i-t© • m h c- - eq eq 
 
 rH Cq © IC5 
 00 » cq 
 
 t- t- l-H © © 
 
 0 ) © 
 
 3 c 
 
 3 3 
 
 be 2 
 cd a) 
 
 oo -^ © © cq © 
 
 i-t © -mho - cq 
 
 © © i-i 
 
 CO ft 
 
 s 
 
 © 
 
 co 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 2 3~ 
 
 £ 
 
 cd 
 
 bo 3 
 
 O 
 
 r& © 
 
 >5 
 
 © 
 
 bo 
 
 3 _ 
 
 3 : 
 
 cd 
 
 3 £ 
 
 bo 
 
 © 
 
 cq oo © t> © 
 
 . U5 . . 
 
 t- t- © M M 
 
 cd 
 
 o ® 
 
 ® fl 
 
 = cd c 
 
 Sit. 
 
 4) 4) 
 
 p P 
 P c 
 
 a) © 
 > > 
 0) © 
 
 4) jO 
 
 1 s 
 
 g s 
 
 Z s 
 
 a « 
 
 p 
 
 4) O 
 
 be ^ 
 
 2 * g 
 
 4> 
 ft 
 4> 
 
 4) 
 bO 
 
 o H cd 
 
 5 03 
 t PL, 
 o 
 Z 
 
 4) 4> 
 
 be be 
 
 3 P 
 
 to co 
 cd cd 
 Pq Ph 
 
 4> 
 
 > © C £ 
 
 | 1 § 5 
 
 4) C -H» 
 
 3 fc. fcH £ 
 
 g sss 
 
 > © 
 « 4) 4) Ih 
 
 at bo be ' M 
 
 h 41 41 bo 
 
 be > > g 
 © ^ © 
 
 £ «j 
 
 3 
 
 -3 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 
 Si. 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 "T 
 
 2 
 
 cd 
 
 © 
 
 "cd 
 
 © 
 
 x 
 
 
 © 
 
 a. 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 ft 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 0 
 
 bo 
 
 bo 
 
 cd 
 
 
 cd 
 
 cd 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 erf 
 
 s s 3 
 § § 
 
 £ 3 3 co 
 
 be bO g © 
 
 ? 1 3 3 
 ££33 
 
 © 41 4) © 
 
 bo bo bo bo 
 
 cd <3 cd cd 
 © © © © 
 <<<< 
 
 © © 
 "1 
 
 +j © 
 
 P ft 
 © 
 
 o 3 
 o 
 
 © S 
 
 ft © 
 ft 
 3 
 
 3 h 
 * © 
 Xi 
 
 cd • 
 o M 
 
 © © 
 3 > 
 3 < 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 ® u 
 
 *■* cd 
 
 s_ © 
 
 O >5 
 
 3 © 
 
 2 03 
 £ © 
 
 4J 2 
 
 bo o 
 
 > w 
 <J bo 
 
 * .5 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 cd 
 
 3 
 
 cd © 
 
 ,3 h 
 
 © © 
 ^ © 
 
 © 3 
 3 0 
 C3 ® 
 
 © 2 
 
 tn. 
 
 ® bo 
 £ 3 
 
 11 
 -H> B 
 © cd 
 
 £ <2 * © 
 bo ® E-t £ 
 
 3 3 
 T3 to 
 cd *C 
 
MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILW AY—INCOM E AND OPERATING STATISTICS 
 
 78 
 
 ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROADS 
 
 © 
 
 bo V 
 
 g cq 
 
 HI 05 
 
 < 
 
 Tf CO 00 00 
 
 - • oo 
 
 ^ ^ co 
 
 CO H 05 CO H 
 
 CD tH CD ^ 
 
 lO t- M IN S 
 
 C- LO O O 
 GO ^ OO CD 
 O lO (N 
 
 co co oq co 
 
 CD O OO rH 
 CD CD CD lO 
 05 05 (N l> 
 
 I> N t- H CD 
 
 O CD lO ID D 
 
 D b* iD 05 
 
 - ^ ~ - O 
 
 ^ OO H Tf 
 
 D 00 OO ID 
 
 CD IN H O iN 
 
 CO CO H CO 
 
 - - ~ - CO 
 
 ^ ID O N rf 
 
 C© LO CO CO CO H 
 
 ^ Oi • t— o 
 
 - - rH O - CO 
 
 W C5 O 00 
 
 ^ 00 IN 
 
 ^ (N OO l> 05 
 
 IN D ^ O CD 
 
 CD Tt' 05 O 
 
 b* O CD b- 
 
 00 N (N ^ 
 CD CO N H 
 O 00 00 D 
 
 IN CD CD cq 
 
 ID 05 00 05 t_^ 
 
 LO IN -T D - 
 
 t- 03 rH <M 
 
 05 ID ID (N ? 
 
 CD CD O CO CD 
 
 (N H O ID oo 
 
 ■T 05 CO 
 
 - t— 
 
 CO D CD CD ID 
 
 CO T CD H Tf 
 
 b- 05 ''T b- 
 
 - - ~ - CO 
 
 ID CO ID H ^ 
 
 LO 05 t>- tH t-H b- 
 
 D3 CO O CD 
 
 X x D CO -t H N CO 
 CD cd CO 05 ID OO 
 
 p d 
 
 O ?> £ 
 
 0) o 
 
 &JD O O 
 
 e 
 
 a> 
 
 D H ® r 
 
 ~ ee -2 © 
 S ~ E o 
 
 I £ 
 
 be 
 c 
 
 p © o 
 
 a) 
 a 
 O 
 
 o 
 X 
 s* u ce 
 
 Oh ^ Ah Ah 
 
 ee D 
 
 © Ah 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 C rrt 
 
 5 2 
 
 •£ © 
 
 2l 
 © ^ 
 ft u 
 O © 
 
 ^ Ah 
 
 O © 
 
 © © 
 
 3 ft 
 
 c c 
 © © 
 > > 
 © © 
 
 e .5 .z 
 
 > > 
 © © 
 
 £ B 
 
 si 
 
 © g 
 
 O -g -*-> 
 
 1 c - I 
 
 g 1 ? 2 * 
 
 t- h t- O d 
 
 ft a © 'O © 
 
 © © p, 
 
 5 © « ® o 
 
 c be be be 
 
 c ft ee d o 
 
 c c c c ee 
 
 .5 C G ft <« O 
 
 o O o ~ 
 
 C I “ 
 
 S i S 
 
 ft bo 
 
 U 3 C 
 
 05 I—I © 
 (V OT 
 W j) SI 
 
 © © Ph 
 
 be be _ 
 
 > 
 
 © © 
 be 
 ee 
 
 £ 
 
 m oj 
 
 At Ah 
 
 t- 2 " l " > "c © ° 
 
 ft § m .§ S ® 
 
 © ’© '© ft” 
 
 © ^ - 2 c 
 
 bo «w <M 'll ft C 
 
 © © © © © 
 
 5 be be be be be 
 
 > ee ee ee ee ee 
 
 © © © © © 
 
North Di 
 
 IN NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 79 
 
 «t)I(omnoonoooooi» 
 
 >» >» 
 
 ■Q 32 
 
 'O o 
 
 d d co 
 CSX! 
 ‘3 ‘3 cC 
 
 ww ' 1—1 
 
 H CD W CD M 
 
 H ID • 00 00 
 
 - - rH O ~ CO 
 
 05 H O CO 
 
 OWt^lCCDOOOOb- 
 
 ID ^ 05 CO 
 ^ - H ID 
 
 M 05 CO 
 
 10 ^^^ 00 ^ 001^00005 
 O tfl ID O H 00 • • 00 
 
 CO CD • QO CD ■ 00 CO OO 00 00 
 
 - - rH O ► CO H tO - H H 
 
 CO H O CO CO b- CO 
 
 CD se- ^ 
 
 COIDCOCO^COCO^CDLDOO 
 O CD CO OO ID • *00 
 
 CD ID *t^OO *0000050005 
 
 ~ iH O * CO H CO -rHO 
 
 “ o CO 
 
 ID 
 
 OO 
 
 cdloc^^tc^cocot-h 
 
 OO OO Tf h 00 
 
 ID CD • 00 H 
 
 - - rH O - CO 
 
 05 H O CO 
 
 N ID ID D 
 H CO *• rH 
 CO O 
 
 C5C0O^00CD00(Mh 
 
 C- CO CO 00 00 ID 
 CO • OO ID 
 
 - - rH O 
 
 • ID 00 O 
 
 - CO rH OO 
 
 CO co co 
 
 T3 O 
 
 o ® 
 
 d 
 
 I « 
 
 '3 P 
 
 £ d 
 3 
 
 11 
 
 0) £ 
 
 ft s 
 o 
 
 <D O 
 
 be « 
 
 CC , 4 _ 
 
 o 
 
 cC £ ® 
 
 o — -p 
 
 ^ s s 
 
 ® H 
 
 d .3 
 
 d cC d 
 
 O Si d 
 
 II 
 
 d 
 
 a .5 
 
 cd 
 
 £ d 
 
 3 ® 
 
 « g 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 I £ s 
 
 3 tn 
 3 d 
 a> a 
 
 3; d 
 
 p-. & 
 
 15? 
 
 I§| 
 
 CO 0, <5 
 
 (2 £ 
 
 d <u d d o 
 
 oo be bo cC 
 
 cc cd cC o d 
 
 c c c rt c 
 
 3 c 3 <w O 
 
 O O o o « 
 
 •§ fe § | $ 
 
 ® '3 3 p 3 
 
 <3 £< <£3 3 £ 
 
 d 
 
 bo 
 
 E* ® ® ® ® © 
 
 <u be be be be bo 
 
 cC cC cC cC cC 
 
 ^ ® « © 3 « 
 
 < < < < 
 
 m - c 
 S" p 
 
 <D U 
 
 3 ^ ® 
 H <U ^ 
 ^ ft CO 
 
 <n as 
 
 £ * be 
 
 cC ® cC 
 
 CO 
 
 0) 
 
 cd (D 
 
 O p 
 
 co ^ 3 
 02 O 
 
 £ d" 
 
 » § >, 
 d ^ £ 
 3 ^ X. 
 
 ® o .5? 
 
 02 
 
 <U d 
 
 ” l -® 
 
 o . 
 
 53 
 
 -u d 
 3 ft to 
 d 3 
 
 d -c £ 
 
 . O ~ 
 
 d ’£ >> 
 
 a d d 
 
 _ ft x: 
 
 d a 
 
 * d . 
 d >> oo 
 
 o w >> 
 
 ^ d •“ 
 
 o ■£ W> 
 
 5o2 
 
 g ^ > 
 
 - m d 
 
 |8d 
 
 ® 3 
 
 3 ^ ” 
 d cC 
 
 CC f~H 
 
 d ri 
 d 
 
 xi > 
 o d 
 cC CO 
 
 d 3 
 be o 
 
 ®l 
 
 d d ^ 
 
 d d &£ 
 
 C5 Cu C