Mr. GoLDSBOROUGH. No; thev did not do that. They said, point-
blank that franchises o^ht to be valued and were valued, ana they
accepted that valuation, although the company had in the past, it
was claimed, been in the receipt of excessive rates, and that it built
itself up upon those rates.
Senator Carter. In order to economize somewhat on time, I
desire to ask a question at this point. Mr. Goldsborough, your argu-
ment seems to fee directed to the question of the value of the prop-
erty, and that Argument is doubtless proceeding upon the theory that
some act is to be framed or ^ome bill is to be prepared looking to the
valuation of property. I presume that is the thought you had in your
mind?

Mr. Goldsborough. I was arguing on the line suggested by my
brother Thomas, as to the wisdom of repealing section 5 of the act of
1896, upon the ground that that act was not in the pubUc interest, in
that it possibly permitted the capitaKzation of franchises and better-
ments derived from undivided profits.
Senator Carter. The constitutionality of that act is now a ques-
tion pending in the courts, as I understand it.
Mr. Goldsborough. In the Supreme Court of the United States.
