Page:Earle, Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty, 1920, 023.jpg

Rh to answer without a practical test from actual operation of the rate. * * *  A  ought not to interfere by  before a fair trial has been made of continuing the business under that rate, and thus eliminating, as far as is possible, the doubt arising from opinions as opposed to facts.  * * *  Such compensation must depend greatly upon circumstances and locality; among other things, the amount of risk in the business is a most important factor.  * * *  The less risk, the less right to any unusual returns upon the investment. One who invests his money in a business of a somewhat hazardous character is very properly held to have the right to a larger return without legislative interference, than can be obtained from an investment in Government Bonds or other perfectly safe security. * * *  It, in other words, becomes matter of speculation or conjecture to a great extent.  * * *  Taxes, even if founded upon an erroneous valuation, were properly treated by the Company as part of its operating expenses."  Although the proof had again failed to show clearly error in the governmental rate, the bill was again dismissed without prejudice.

In the Northern Pacific case, the Court says: "There are many factors to be considered * * *  the risk assumed."  And the Court again speaks of "the difficult question of determining what is a reasonable rate."

Again, in the Louisville case, it is said: "Where an existing freight rate is attacked, the burden is on the complainant to establish that it is unreasonable in fact. * * *  While some elements of value are