charges and the order of the Commission to ascertain and determine the fair present value of the property of the said St. Joseph Gas Company, due notice thereof having been given, and the three said causes having been duly heard and submitted by the parties, and full investigation of the matters and things involved having been had, and the Commission having on the date hereof made and filed its report, containing its findings of facts and conclusions thereon, and having ascertained the fair present value of the said property as therein described, which said report is hereby referred to and made a part hereof: Now, upon the evidence in these cases and after due deliberation, it is

"Ordered: (1) That the Commission, upon a full consideration of all the evidence in these cases, finds as a fact that the fair present value for determining reasonable and just rates of all the property of the St. Joseph Gas Company as described and set forth in the report of the Commission filed herein and made a part of this order, as of date March 1, 1915, and used and useful by the said company in the service of the public, considering said property and every part thereof as a going concern, and including engineering, supervision, and interest during construction, organization and general expenses, legal expenses, contingent expenses, insurance, general contractor's profit, working capital, and all other elements of value, tangible and intangible, as used in the public service in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of artificial gas, is the sum of $1,673,000, as used in the public service in the sale and distribution of natural gas, the sum of $1,324,000, and as used in the public service in the sale and distribution of natural gas with water gas as a reserve or stand-by service, the sum of $1,620,000, which said sums, respectively, are hereby fixed and determined by the Commission to be the fair present value of said property as of said date, for the purpose of determining reasonable and just rates.

"Ordered: (2) That the complaint of the city council and mayor of the city of St. Joseph be dismissed without prejudice.

"Ordered: (3) That the rates and charges for natural gas as shown in the schedule filed by the said St. Joseph Gas Company with the Commission September 29, 1914, to become effective November 1, 1914, and contained in the following tariff, viz., P. S. C. Mo. No. 1, 1st Revised Sheet No. 1, Canceling P. S. C. Mo. No. 1, Original Sheet No. 1, are unreasonable and unjust, and said company be and it is hereby ordered and required to cancel the same on or before November 29, 1915, and that the said St. Joseph Gas Company shall not put into force and effect the said schedule or any part thereof.

"Ordered: (4) That this order shall take effect on December 15, 1915, and that the secretary of the Commission forthwith serve a certified copy of this order and opinion filed herein on said St. Joseph Gas Company and the mayor and city council of the city of St. Joseph."

In the opinion accompanying its order, the Commission reached the following conclusions, among others: (1) That 26% cents per thousand cubic feet, the rate paid by the St. Joseph Gas Company to the Kaw Natural Gas Company for natural gas delivered at the city limits in St. Joseph, was unreasonably high. (2) That 17 cents or 18 cents per thousand cubic feet was a reasonable rate to be paid for said gas so delivered, instead of 263 cents. (3) That 60 cents per thousand cubic feet, the rate filed by the St. Joseph Gas Company, and proposed to be charged its customers for natural gas, was unreasonably high and unjust. (4) That 40 cents per thousand cubic feet for natural gas de livered by the St. Joseph Gas Company to its customers was not shown to be unreasonably low or unjust to the St. Joseph Gas Company.

On December 19, 1915, a motion for rehearing was filed by the St. Joseph Gas Company with the Public Service Commission of Missouri. January 15, 1916, the motion for rehearing was overruled. Meanwhile, on December 14, 1915, the St. Joseph Gas Company filed a mo

tion in the district court of Montgomery county (the court controlling the receivers of the Kansas Natural Gas Company), setting forth the decision and order of the Public Service Commission of Missouri, and praying for an order requiring the receivers to supply gas to the St. Joseph Gas Company at 17 cents per thousand cubic feet. February 10, 1916, said district court of Montgomery county, Kan., denied said motion. February 19, 1916, the St. Joseph Gas Company filed a supplemental motion for a rehearing with the Public Service Commission of Missouri, setting forth the proceedings had before the state district court of Montgomery county, Kan. February 23, 1916, the supplemental motion for a rehearing was overruled.

The St. Joseph Gas Company has brought this suit against the Public Service Commission of the state of Missouri and the members thereof, the Attorney General of the state of Missouri, the attorney for said Commission, the prosecuting attorney for Buchanan county, and certain consumers of gas, residents of St. Joseph, Mo., to prevent by the injunction of this court, the enforcement of that portion of the order of the Missouri Public Service Commission, which held that the proposed rate of 60 cents for natural gas was unreasonable and unjust, and ordered and required the Gas Company to cancel the same. The injunction is sought on the grounds that the 40-cent rate for natural gas thus left in effect is unreasonable, noncompensatory, and confiscatory; that the new proposed rate of 60 cents is no more than is essential to avoid the confiscation of the plaintiff's property; that by said order of said Commission the plaintiff has been and is deprived of the equal protection of the law, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.

After the commencement of the suit an application for an interlocutory injunction against the enforcement of said portion of said order of the Public Service Commission was made and has been heard, in accordance with the provisions of section 266 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1162) as amended (Act March 4, 1913, c. 160, 37 Stat. 1013), 2 U. S. Compiled Statutes 1916, § 1243, p. 1960. The Commission conceded in its opinion and decision that, on the bases of the valuation of the property and of the expenses of its operation which it adopted, the 40-cent rate was confiscatory unless (1) the complainant could and should in the future charge and collect for the free gas furnished to the state, the county, and the city, the proceeds from which would amount to less than $800 per annum; (2) increase the rates charged for natural gas for manufacturing purposes, but the quantity and the possible amounts obtainable by such increases are so small as to be negligible in the determination of the question here at issue; (3) refuse to pay the $4,800 per annum it has been paying for services and salaries of nonresident officers; and (4) reduce the 26% cents per thousand cubic feet it was paying to the Kansas Natural Gas Company for its gas to 17 cents per thousand feet. The complainant asserts that the Commission's bases of valuation and of expense of operation were erroneous in many respects and that the four changes in operating expenses specified above ought not to be made. These assertions, the denials of them by the Commission, and the evidence on these issues have been read and considered. But the evidence con

vinces that all of them, except the proposed change in the rate to be paid for the gas from 26% cents to 17 cents per thousand cubic feet, are immaterial to the issue of whether or not the 40-cent rate is confiscatory, and to this issue of whether or not the 60-cent rate is unreasonably high. If all these issues were decided in favor of the Commission, the difference they would make in the bases of valuation and erpense of operation would not affect the result which the evidence upon the other issues compels. They are, therefore, here dismissed without discussion, further consideration, or decision.

[1, 2] The question of the reduction of the rate paid for the gas from 263 cents to 17 cents is, however, crucial, and all the evidence upon that subject has been analyzed and has received consideration and reflection. The Commission found that, while the complainant maintains the 40-cent rate and pays 263 cents for its gas, thus receiving for its share of the rate 13 cents per thousand cubic feet, it obtains a return of less than 3 per cent. on the value of its property, but that, if it could obtain for its share of the 40-cent rate 23 cents per thousand cubic feet it would obtain a return of 6.6 per cent. upon the value of its property. The complainant was and is bound by a contract with the Natural Gas Company, which furnishes the gas, to pay to that company two-thirds of the gross amount it receives for the gas it obtains from that company. The Commission invoked the indisputable rule that, notwithstanding contracts between parties engaged in producing, furnishing, or transporting public utilities, reasonable charges only will be allowed as against the public (Steenerson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 69 Minn. 353, 404, 72 N. W. 713; Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 345, 12 Sup. Ct. 400, 36 L. Ed. 176), and found that the charge of 26% cents as an operating expense for obtaining natural gas at St. Joseph was an unreasonable charge and 17 cents was a reasonable one. The opinion of the Commission indicates that the facts that the Natural Gas Company was delivering gas chiefly derived from a place in Oklahoma about 240 to 270 miles distant, to Kansas City, Kan., Kansas City, Mo., and Topeka, Lawrence, Leavenworth, and Atchison, Kan., at about 25 cents per thousand cubic feet and receiving only about two-thirds of the proceeds of the sales of this gas, or about 17 cents per thousand cubic feet for the gas delivered, and that St. Joseph was only 40 miles further from the source of supply than Leavenworth, only 70 miles further than Kansas City, Mo., and only 20 miles further than Atchison, Kan., furnished the persuasive and probably the convincing reason and evidence for that conclusion, because (1) the evidence upon the reasonableness of that 25-cent rate to the consumers in the Kansas cities which convinced the Public Commission of Kansas that that rate was confiscatory of the property of the Kansas Natural Gas Company, and the evidence that convinced the members of this court, sitting in the United States District Court of Kansas in Landon, Receiver, v. Public Utilities Commission of that State, that no rate less than 32 cents to the people of those cities would prove sufficient on the basis of two-thirds of the proceeds of the sales, or 21% cents per thousand feet to the Kansas Natural Gas Company to operate the business of that company and to yield it a fair income on the value of its property, because all this evidence has been intro

duced in this court and has confirmed our conclusion in the Kansas case; and (2) because a higher rate to consumers and a higher rate for the delivery of gas at St. Joseph than at Kansas City and other cities as near or nearer the source of supply is indispensable to yield fair compensation to the Natural Gas Company on the basis of two-thirds to it and one-third to the local gas company.

St. Joseph is the most distant city supplied by the Natural Gas Company, and it is supplied by a pipe line running from one of the trunk lines of the company across the Missouri river for the express purpose of supplying that city. There is, therefore, property of greater value used to supply St. Joseph than is used to supply cities nearer the source of supply. The greater the distance gas is piped the greater is the leakage and the loss of gas thereby, and the greater is the pressure required to send it to its destination. An immense volume of gas is delivered at Kansas City. Kan., and Kansas City, Mo., and a very small volume comparatively at St. Joseph, and the larger the volume delivered at a given place the less the compensatory rate per thousand feet. The argument that the reasonable charge for the delivery of the gas to St. Joseph cannot be greater than 2113 cents per thousand cubic feet, the amount that the Gas Company at Atchison would presumptively pay under the 32-cent rate, is not persuasive, because that rate has not been determined to be compensatory anywhere, much less in Atchison (all that this court has declared as to the 32 cent rate is that it was convinced by the evidence in the Landon Case that no rate less than 32 cents would be found to be sufficient to compensate the Natural Gas Company for its gas on the basis of two-thirds of the proceeds to it and one-third to the local company), because the 32-cent rate suggested was not that particular rate to the consumers in each city which the Natural Gas Company supplies, wherever that city is located, but a suggestion of an average rate, and because it is patent that the reasonable rate to the consumers and the reasonable charge for obtaining gas at the city most distant from the source of supply is unavoidably higher per thousand cubic feet than it is at cities of the same size nearer to the source of supply.

[3] There can, therefore, be no doubt that 21% cents per thousand cubic feet is not an unreasonably high charge by the Natural Gas Company for the delivery of natural gas to a city on its lines at an average distance from the main source of supply, that St. Joseph is the most distant city, that the gas is delivered to that city through a special pipe laid across the Missouri river by the Natural Gas Company for its special benefit, and that a reasonable charge for delivery of gas to that city is more than 2113 cents. Thus the question becomes how much more. The contract of the parties is that 26% cents shall be paid when the rate is 40 cents, and that is prima facie evidence of the reasonable value of the service. Mr. Hays testified that no amount less than 26% cents per thousand cubic feet would be sufficient to compensate the Natural Gas Company for providing and delivering the natural gas to St. Joseph. Mr. Wyer, an engineer of great learning and experience, prepared elaborate tables of the comparative cost of the delivery of the gas at the various cities served by the Natural Gas Company, and his opinion, as shown by these tables, was that it would

cost the Natural Gas Company 1.52 per cent. of the cost to it of delivering gas at Kansas City to deliver gas at St. Joseph, and the review of the entire testimony upon this subject has satisfied that at least as much as 263 cents per thousand cubic feet is indispensable to fairly compensate the Natural Gas Company for providing and delivering to the complainant natural gas at the city of St. Joseph, and that that amount was not and is not an unreasonably high charge for the St. Joseph Gas Company to make as an operating expense for the purchase and delivery thereof.

[4] Now, assuming that whether the rate at St. Joseph continue at 40 cents or be advanced to 60 cents, in either event the receiver of the Kansas Natural Gas Company is only to take his share of the rate 26% cents as at present fixed by the contract under the 40-cent rate, does the evidence show that an advance of the rate to 60 cents will not result in more than a fair return upon the reasonable value of the property now used and useful in the manufacture and distribution of gas at St. Joseph? It is contended by the defendant that the advance. of the rate from 40 to 60 cents will result in such reduction in the use of gas, either in number of consumers or in reduction of quantity used per consumer, or both, as to render the net income of the company no greater at 60 cents than at 40 cents. Of course, if this contention were well founded, then no advantage would accrue to the company by the raise, and hence no injury result by reason of the order of the commission. In support of this contention certain affidavits giving the opinions of persons of more or less experience in such matters, generally based upon results in other places widely scattered, are put in evidence. To what extent, if at all, the conditions in the localities furnishing the data for such opinions are similar to those of St. Joseph does not apThe evidence establishes that the future sales of gas at St. Joseph even at 40 cents for manufacturing or boiler purposes will be so small as to be negligible, if in fact any such gas be sold at all. It also appears that the lighting business is practically monopolized by the electric light company, and hence revenue from that source need not be considered. This reduces the present consumption to heating and cooking purposes. At present the gas company has about 1,100 customers who use gas for heating purposes, amounting to a consumption of a little more than 69,000,000 cubic feet per annum for such purposes. Other consumers of large quantities are the hotels, restaurants, and gas engine users, etc., using annually a little more than 148,000,000 cubic feet per annum, making a total of 217,000,000 cubic feet. This was about 30 per cent. of the total sales of domestic gas for 1915. Of course the other 70 per cent. must have been consumed for cooking purposes. For cooking and lighting purposes artificial gas at a rate of $1, where natural gas is not obtainable, will compete with other fuel. Therefore it must follow that for cooking purposes natural gas at 60 cents will displace other fuel and hence there should be no falling off in the number of consumers for cooking purposes, and no great reduction in the amount of consumption for such purpose.

Assuming, then, that all the aforementioned conditions except for cooking is lost, it will only result in a loss of about 30 per cent. of the consumption. We believe that the estimate of the witness Abel, that