The Washington State Appraisal.
The State of Washington, through its Railroad Commissioners, made an appraisal of railroad properties within its borders, the work being under the direction of Halbert P. Gillette, M. Am. Soc. C. E.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14.
Fig. 15.
Fig. 16.
Fig. 17.
Fig. 18.
Fig. 19.
Fig. 20.
Fig. 21.
From Mr. Gillette's report,[[11]] supplemented by information furnished by Henry L. Gray, Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E., Engineer of the Railroad Commission of Washington, the following general statement as to methods is gleaned:
The plan involved, not only a determination of cost of reproduction and present value, but also original cost.
The appraiser was unable to adopt the methods followed in Wisconsin and Minnesota, in so far as they accepted the inventory of the railroads, but made his own examinations of records. The railroads of the State denied that they had any information whatever that would be of value to the Commission.
The records of the Engineering Department were examined. The records of the Accounting Department were analyzed, various annual reports were examined and a corporate history of the road prepared.
Special forms for securing information were not prepared, and no rules, or definite order of procedure to be used for all roads alike, were adopted.
It is somewhat difficult to determine from the appraiser's report just what part of it covers actual work done, and what part is theory developed from the work, but presumably maps were prepared and profiles secured which represented the original conditions of construction.
The field inspection was made on hand-cars or on foot, each field inspector being furnished with the plans, profiles, etc.
The same conditions existed in Washington as elsewhere, that is, certain records were not kept up, and were found to be inaccurate and unreliable, and, as a result, the appraiser reported the condition to be such as "to cause much unnecessary work subsequently in checking."
A percentage of depreciation was not placed in the field, but was determined by "mortality tables," or by ascertaining the probable years of structure life, then determining from the age of the particular structure under consideration its percentage of depreciation, a method by no means new. It is not stated that any attempt was made to compare these tables with the rules of the Master Car Builders Association for valuing equipment, and no field inspection of equipment was made. The prevailing prices of materials formed the basis for estimating the cost of reproduction.
The value of motive power and rolling stock was apportioned among the States on the basis of engine- and car-mileage.
The land values were fixed by the Railroad Commission sitting as a court; real estate men from the large cities, real estate experts brought by the railway companies, and others testified; and, based on this testimony, the value was determined by the Commission in the same manner as in a condemnation case. Three right-of-way experts, all of whom had had experience in purchasing right of way for roads, were in the regular employ of the Commission, and details as to present values were referred to them.
The chief point of difference between this work and that of the other States apparently was the effort to ascertain first cost of the properties plus additions. This was done by an examination of the accounts of the railway companies.
The result of the Washington work, as far as rate-making is concerned, is indeterminate, as the United States Courts have held that the Commission may not fix freight rates. The Supreme Court of the State has held that they could. The Supreme Court has also held that the Tax Commission should accept the findings of the Railroad Commission for the purpose of taxation, with the result, as stated by Mr. Gray, that more than $1,250,000 more was received last year than during any prior year from railroad taxes.
The report of the Washington appraiser differs widely from that for other States in that it is diffuse and does not present the methods clearly and systematically; it is difficult, indeed, to trace what was actually done. The writer is loath to criticize, but this report is such as to suggest comment on a number of points.
1.—Throughout the report very great stress is laid on the cost of making the appraisal. Such an undertaking as an appraisal of corporation property should be done thoroughly or left alone. It matters not whether the work of Professor Cooley or Professor Taylor cost $5 a mile or $50 a mile, if a dependable result was secured. It does not appear to be good taste either to criticize costs of work in other States, or compare the costs in Wisconsin and Michigan with the costs in Washington.
2.—A number of criticisms, amounting almost to reflections, are made on the methods elsewhere. The appraiser says:
"Speaking for myself, I found the precedents established by Texas, Michigan, and Wisconsin of little value either in deciding the methods to be pursued in making the appraisals or in estimating the probable cost of appraisal....
"In estimating present or depreciated values of structures, rolling stock, etc., both Michigan and Wisconsin had sent experts into the field to estimate the percentage of present value to each unit. In this manner 40,000 freight cars were inspected in Michigan and their 'present value' estimated. To me this seemed to be not only a useless procedure but very erroneous....
"The appraisals heretofore made in other states have been based almost entirely upon field surveys and inspection, no attempt having been made to secure the necessary data from the engineering and accounting records of the railways. Why? The answer is found in the purpose of the appraisal."
Such sentences, and others which, by inference if not by name, reflect on work executed by men of high professional standing, are hardly in good taste, even if true, in a report to a railroad commission of another State. Whether or not he found little of value, the appraiser's general line of procedure was not radically different from that followed in Michigan and Wisconsin in getting all available data first from the companies, then in making a field inspection before fixing values. If misled by erroneous profiles, he went into an error needlessly, as it was fully known in Michigan that records were in the condition described before any field work was begun.
The inspection of freight cars in Michigan was not to "estimate present value" but to determine at first hand whether the Master Car Builders rules for valuation were safe to use, and to back up their use in Court.
The third paragraph quoted is a misstatement, due clearly to a misapprehension of what really was done.
3.—The spirit of suspicion of railroad men's motives is an unfortunate one to carry into a railroad appraisal, much less into a report.
4.—The writer fully realizes the magnitude of the task before the appraiser who is asked to determine first cost plus improvements or betterments.
Hardly a trunk line road exists to-day that has not grown up from a small beginning, changed its line, reduced its grades, added safety devices, changed the type of its bridges and buildings, increased the weight of its rails, put in service much heavier equipment, in fact, completely changed everything, except, perhaps, the original right of way.
The task of securing from old accounting department records an accurate statement of cost is—and the writer says it with the confidence born of experience—an impossibility. It is a job of such magnitude as to be practically prohibitive. The different systems of accounting, the different policies of the management, as to charging betterments to capital or operating expense, to say nothing of the countless errors that creep into the distribution of accounts, place such an undertaking among the labors of a modern Hercules, and, to one who has been engaged even in the task of trying to ascertain what one year's accounting on a large road may do in concealing betterments under the guise of operating expense, it would appear that a result that could be sworn to as correct was impossible of attainment along the lines suggested in this report.
The general question of the propriety of the use of mortality tables is discussed elsewhere in this paper.
This document, as an addition to the literature of the subject of valuation of properties, is disappointing, for if there were original and valuable methods they are not explicitly described.
The cost of making the appraisal was about $13 per mile of line.
[11]. Engineering-Contracting.