Date Miles of road Total Per mile Total Per mile COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENTS OF RAILROAD PROPERTY, EARNINGS AND TAXES REPORTED IN THE Assessed Value Gross Earnings Net Earnings Percentage of assessment earnings 9,236 46,008,510 4,981 49,549,679 5,364 92.8 1901 9,336 1902 9,414 47,071,258 5,042 52,354,817 5,607 89.9 13,154,199 1,767 238 853,758.00 120 .024 .060 943,314.00 127 .028 .072 987,027.00 132 .028 .075 1,013,731.00 28 .027 .071 .030 .034 .105 .031 .092 312 1,509,370.00 163 .030 .097 1,563,492.87 169 .030 .104 1,651 394 1,526 438 Total Per mile Per cent of assessment, net earnings Taxes paid mile of road Taxes per Per cent of taxes on gross earnings Per cent of taxes on net earnings railroads of Iowa had spent as much as they should in repairing their roadbed and tracks, in repairing their stations, stockyards, fences, their equipment, and the many things necessary to maintain a standard railroad, this small net for 1911 would have shrunk to nearly nothing, if it had not altogether disappeared. Turning to the national field, the outlook is little, if any, more promising. A few roads there may be which, on account of their advantageous location with respect to rates or competition or density of traffic, are fairly prosperous, but with the great majority of the roads the situation is becoming serious. The net earnings of the railroads of the United States were over seventy million dollars less in the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1911, than for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1910, and at the same time the amount expended for maintenance of way and structures decreased more than eleven million dollars. A comparison of the calendar year of 1911 with 1910 shows a decrease of net earnings of more than forty million dollars and a decrease of over twentyeight million dollars in maintenance. We, of course, have not at hand data by which we can compare the results for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1912, with former years, but from the data we have, we already know that the net earnings for this year will be many million dollars less than even the year 1911. What of the future? Unfortunately there seems to be no cessation in the activities of the powers having jurisdiction over the carriers. There is constantly pending before all legislative bodies while in session, all Commissions-State and National-city councils, taxing bodies, etc., bills and proceedings looking to the further increase of the expenditures and decrease of the revenues of the carriers, while if you should go over the record with a vacuum cleaner you would not find a trace of anything looking to their relief. The immediate and pressing need of the railroads and one which will last far into the future is capital with which to enlarge their facilities, especially to build and enlarge terminals in the cities where ground is expensive, to elevate tracks, build viaducts, to eliminate grade crossings, build new depots, etc. This capital cannot be obtained unless the railroads are permitted to earn a reasonable return on the value of their property. All this does not mean that government regulation is wrong in principle, or that the carrier should not furnish adequate service, or the best track and equipment, or adequate facilities, or that the railways should not pay their fair share of the taxes, or pay fair compensation to their employees, or that the industry should not bear the risk inherent in the business, or that the railways should not cease to discriminate between shippers. All these things should be required of them, but having discharged their public duties, the Government-State and National— should see to it that their revenues are adequate. In this matter the railways are helpless, there is nothing in their wrongs that appeals to the newspapers; the politician does not have his ear to the ground, or any place else, to learn what are the wishes of the railroads and unless the average conservative, conscientious, and patriotic citizen takes an interest in this matter and sees to it that justice is done, disaster is going to come. The future of the railroads is threatened by the peril of starvation. The only escape is through the enlightened, intelligent understanding of the situation by the public, whose will in this matter will always be followed by those who are delegated to exercise the power of regulation. It is time we stopped talking about such bogey men as the "interests", "watered stock" and "enormous dividends" and study the situation as it actually exists. An educational programme, which will result in an understanding of the situation will make it possible to continue to successfully operate our railroads with private capital with a reasonable degree of satisfaction both to the investor and the public. The alternative is probably government ownership. It isn't the purpose of this paper to discuss the merits of government ownership of railroads, except to suggest that those of us who have had any considerable experience with bureaucratic government as illustrated by some of the governmental departments at Washington, will hardly want to have it extended to include the carriers of this country. THE PRESIDENT: I had already announced that the Annual Address would be given at 11 o'clock, and as it lacks almost an hour of that time, we will take up the report of the Committee on Law Reform, to be presented by Dean E. B. Evans: CHAIRMAN EVANS: In reading the history of that part of our proceedings which we are now taking up, as outlined in the records we have made heretofore, I have discovered a tendency on the part of the Association to treat the Committee on Law Reform as that portion of our Association which is entitled to be placed immediately in front of our modern steam roller. I do not know that the committee are to have this experience this year. Our report has been in your hands, except a supplemental matter, to be presented later, and is sufficiently plain, so that every lawyer will understand it fully, and I doubt if any argument might be made either for or against which would modify our individual opinions as to the merits of the report. I therefore will introduce as Exhibit A, in favor of the recommendations of the Committee on Law Reform, that magnificent address which closed our banquet last night. The report of the Committee is as follows: To the Iowa State Bar Association: Your Committee on Law Reform submits the following report. Of the propositions submitted below we recommend for adoption Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and submit for discussion No. 5. I That the Legislature should adopt the following section: "No judgment shall be set aside or reversed or new trial granted by any court of this State in any case, civil or criminal, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or for error in the admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless, in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire cause, it shall appear that the error complained of has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties.'' II That the Committee on Law Reform be authorized and directed to prepare or cause to be prepared a bill, to be submitted to the next General Assembly, providing for an increase in the number of Supreme Judges, so that the number shall be not less than nine; that the court shall be divided into two sections of not less than five each, the Chief Justice to preside over the meetings of each section; that one section shall meet to hear oral argu ments in the forenoon, and the other section in the afternoon, of each day of the term set aside for submission of causes; also for an equitable distribution of the causes appealed between the sections. III That the Legislature should adopt the necessary amendments to the laws so as to empower the trial court to limit arguments in jury cases, provided, that in no case shall the argument for each side be limited to less than one hour; and, provided, that in the more important civil cases, and in all criminal cases, the limitation should not be less than three hours to a side; and in criminal cases involving a death penalty, or a possible life imprisonment, no limitation should be made. IV That the Legislature should adopt the necessary amendment to the present laws to provide for a verdict agreed to by nine jurors in all civil cases, and in criminal cases where the punishment is less than life imprisonment; such verdict, however, not to be accepted by the court until the jury have deliberated for a period of not less than ten hours. V That the names of all persons who are candidates for nomination to either the Supreme or District bench shall be printed on a ballot distinct and separate from the primary ballots of the various parties, and a copy of such primary ballot shall be furnished to each and every voter participating in the primary; that the two men receiving the highest number of votes for each office shall be declared the nominees for that office, and the names of the two candidates thus nominated shall be printed on the ballot of each political party at the election. Respectfully submitted, E. B. EVANS, J. J. CLARK, M. A. ROBERTS, A. N. HOBSON. Judge Roberts, while not offering any specific objection to the first and fourth items of the report, does not join in recommending them. Senator Van Law would limit proposition IV to civil cases only where the amount in controversy did not exceed $2000. As to the first proposition, we have in our procedure a law which permits the court to proceed with the trial of a case in the face of an application for a continuance, based upon the absence of material witnesses, if there appears in the record as resisting |