│ │ │line near Harlan │ Osceola │Pere Marquette. │ 40.03│Pere Marquette. │ 57.93 │ │ │Change line near │ │ │ │Evart │ ═════════╧═══════════════════╧══════════╧═══════════════════╧═════════ Having shown that there is an increase in cost of railroad over farm land, the question arises: Is it legitimate? If it is a proper item of cost, has it a place in the present value column? In building a new railroad, engineers prepare their estimates of cost, including grading, rail and fastenings, ties, bridges, and, among other items, right of way. Their clients provide funds to build the line, and furnish, among other items, cash for the right of way. The right-of-way account in no wise differs from that of any other item of physical cost. The right of way, with all its hold-ups, items for damages, court costs, legal expenses, bills for personal services and expenses in securing it, abstracts and recording of deeds, is just as much an element of physical cost as the rails. The cost of acquiring the right of way is as proper an element as charges for inspecting the rails, freight charges on them, the loading and unloading, or any other charges that enter into the cost of rails delivered to the track-laying contractor. Should the cost of reproduction of right of way be carried to the present value column? Clearly, yes. If a road is unfortunate enough to buy its rails when they are at a price of $60 per ton, the full price is charged to capital account; and when the line is sold to some large corporation, no reduction is made, even though the price of rails be much less at the time, but the selling price is based on the construction account as a whole.