It is submitted that the clear meaning of the foregoing is that both replacement cost and real value as derived from use must be separately and independently ascertained, and that, these aggregates having been compared, the former is to be corrected by whatever allowance for non-physical value may be required to make it agree precisely with the latter. The obvious suggestion flowing from this discovery of his theory is that only value in use is wanted, as that is the only real value, and as it must be separately ascertained in any event, no other and _pseudo_ value need be taken. The essential character of the method is as described, even when it is applied through determination of the annual value of the use and the assignment of one portion of such annual value to return on the capital value of the physical property and another portion to return on the capital value of non-physical property. The real nature of the method is not even effectually concealed by the capitalization of the income assigned to physical property at one rate and the income assigned to non-physical property at a different and higher rate. In fact, if it is necessary to conclude that a portion of the net annual income of railway property is normally paid to, or in respect of, a portion of capital entitled to a lower rate of return, and the remainder to or in respect of a remainder of capital entitled to a higher rate, the appraisal of the physical property is an excessively costly, cumbersome, and inaccurate expedient for determining the amount or value of either portion of the capital. Yet that is exactly what was done in Michigan by Professor Adams, the "valuation" he then made being completed before he altered his view by deciding that the non-physical elements of value are entitled to no consideration whatever, and that only cost of replacement is worthy of inclusion in an official "valuation." But is there any real distinction between the "physical properties" and the "immaterial elements," such as the foregoing extract seems to assume? Is not the superficial appearance of such a distinction plausible but deceptive? A locomotive is an entity; so is a railway. The separate parts of a locomotive are most of them independently valuable; so are the separate parts of a railway; but a large share of the value of the locomotive is the result of the nice adjustment of these separate parts to each other and to the work to be done.