The preliminary steps should include a general examination of the property, a study of its corporate history, an examination of its records, maps and profiles, and the preparation of an inventory of its property. The work in Wisconsin and Minnesota was done in co-operation with the railroad companies, who prepared (generally, but not in every case) their own inventories on forms adopted by the appraiser. In Michigan, all this information was secured by the appraiser. There can certainly be no valid objection to the use of information compiled by the companies, whose familiarity with their own records and property would enable them to supply lists which under all ordinary conditions would be more complete and up-to-date than if made up by men having no special knowledge of the property. The chief difficulty encountered in making an inventory from recorded data lies in the fact that very few sets of records are corrected to date, and many additions and erasures will of necessity have to be made in the field. In making a field inspection, it is of great assistance to be able to refer to maps of large yards, to profiles, to standard plans, and to drawings of the principal structures, so that the investigation of office records should include a careful examination of the maps of principal terminals, with a view to securing such as will simplify the field inspection. The investigation should be extended to cover a study, not only of the engineering office data, but also statistical data to be derived from the records of the auditor, superintendent, and superintendent of motive power, and should cover earnings, operating expenses, car and locomotive mileage, and such other data as will facilitate the distribution of such elements of value as are not localized, together with such other statistics as will furnish a thorough knowledge of the property and its operations. It has been claimed by the appraiser in Washington—and the view is also held by the Commissioner of Railroads in Nebraska—that original cost is essential, in view of the Supreme Court's decision, particularly in Smyth _vs._ Ames. The writer cannot accept the correctness of this position. It would appear that the language of the Court should be construed to mean that original cost, where ascertainable, is a proper matter to take into account, along with many other things; but it can hardly be considered mandatory.