Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., ante,
154 U. S. 362
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are cases in which, as in those just decided, the tariff
established by the Texas Railroad Commission was challenged, and
with like result. The St. Louis Southwestern Railway
Page 154 U. S. 419
Company, named in the first of these cases, is called by counsel
for defendants, in their brief, "a reorganized bankrupt concern."
Its road has a total mileage, including main line and branches, of
572 miles. It would seem to be a railroad which was unwisely built,
and one whose operating expenses have always exceeded its earnings.
Counsel say that "it is familiarly known in Texas as a teaser,'
and, if it ever passes beyond this interesting but unprofitable
stage, even its friends will be surprised." We are not advised, and
we can hardly be expected to take judicial notice, of what is meant
by the term "teaser," but it is clearly disclosed by the record
that this was an unprofitable road.
The Tyler Southeastern Railway Company, named in the second
suit, has a short road, of ninety miles, and also appears as a
"reorganized bankrupt concern," and one whose road has been
operated with constant loss. In the record in each case is found
two annual reports returned to the railroad commission, one for the
year ending June 30, 1891, and the other for that ending June 30,
1892. Comparing the statements in these reports, defendants'
counsel say that the business of the roads has largely increased
since the establishment of the rates made by the commission, and
urge that no complaint can be made of action which has resulted so
favorably. But an examination shows that the report for the year
ending June 30, 1891, includes only the earnings and operating
expenses for the single month commencing June 1, 1891, when the new
company took possession and commenced operations, and so the
enormous increase spoken of is simply the difference between the
earnings and expenses for twelve months and those for one month.
The bills, with their amendments, allege a decrease in the tonnage
as well as a decrease in the rates.
We think, therefore, the cases come within the reasoning of the
prior opinions, and that it will not do to hold that, because the
roads have been operating in the past at a loss to the owners, it
is just and reasonable to so reduce the rates as to increase the
amount of that loss. Hence,
The decrees here will be like those ordered in the prior