The valuations of 1894-95 stand to-day on the Commission's records as "the value of the property," except in cases where there has been application and necessity for re-valuation. The machinery of the law did not provide that these appraisals should be kept "up to date." The mortgages on these railroads are still outstanding, and there has been no call for another appraisal, except in a few instances. The Commission has decided that in its opinion the "present value" of any of the railroads already appraised is represented by the original valuation plus the value of all permanent improvements and betterments added. This principle has been carried out with those railroads which have applied for re-valuation for any purpose, and the Commission has admitted the same in testimony which it has given before the Courts. Since the appraisals which the Texas Commission makes are primarily for the purpose of limiting indebtedness, and the carriers are entitled to have these at least equal the cost of their property—the investment with certain additions to cover promoters' profits—no consideration can be given to depreciation of structures and equipment, although the application for valuation and process of issuing of securities may be had several years after completion. The writer holds that there is strong argument in favor of not taking into account "depreciation," and of estimating the value of the property as being entirely "new," whatever purpose the valuation is proposed to serve. This is apparent, as already stated, when the valuation is to serve as a basis for limiting the issue of stock and bonds. Is there any logical reason why a valuation for this purpose should not also serve—as far as it pertains—as a basis for taxation or for regulating freight rates? As far as the State is concerned—and to be consistent—should not "one" valuation serve all purposes? Suppose that a State should create a board clothed with powers of rate regulation, taxation, and authority to restrict indebtedness, and also prescribe that it should appraise the value of the property of the railroads, and use that appraisal as the basis for its acts. Would it be logical for that board to make and apply one system of valuation for one purpose and another system for another purpose? Manifestly, it would have declared that a valuation was a "valuation" for all purposes, at least as far as the physical property was concerned; and, when devising a method for making its appraisals, it should incorporate therein all the elements of value which might apply logically to either purpose. The writer believes that "depreciation" of roadbed and structures would have no place in such an appraisal, on the one hand, nor its negative, but fully as intangible and difficult of concrete estimate, "adaptation and solidification of roadbed," on the other.