upr000283 192

V officers in that regard. Southwestern'Beil Tel. Co. v. Public Service Com., 262 U.S. 276, 2$9, 43 S. Ct. 544, 67 L. Ed. 9$1, 31 A.L.R. $07; State'Public Utilities.. Com. v. Springfield Gas & Elec."Co., 291 111. 209, 234, 125‘N.E. $91; People v. Stevens, 203 N.Y. 7 } 96 N. E. 114, 117; Idaho Power Co. v. Thompson (D.C. Idaho) 19 F. (2d)-547, 5$0; Kansas City, K. ?. & W; Ry. Co. v. ' Bristow, 101 Kan. 557, 167 P. 113$, 1140, L.R.A. 191$E, 342; Denver Union Stock Yard Co. v. United States (D.C. Colo.) 57 F. (2d) 735, 74$.,? In this case we do not contend that the Commission may not inquire into the reasonableness of the amount of water-bear­ing land of the railroad. However, the fact remains that the Railroad Company has purchased and holds 679.42 acres of water­bearing land and it must be presumed that this is not more than necessary for its purposes in the absence of evidence showing that the management exercised bad judgment in acquiring and hold­ing this land for the purpose of water production. Furthermore, the finding of the Commission is plainly erroneous because it fails to define the land which it considers not to be used and useful. How is the Water Company to know, or a Court reviewing the Commission's decision to know, the iden­tity of the land which the Commission regards as useful and the identity of the land which it regards as useless for the purpose of water production? It is the law, established by numerous de­cisions, that the findings of a public service commission in a case of this character must be definite enough to permit a re­viewing Court to intelligently review the decision of the Com­mission. It is the obligation of the Commission in its opinion to furnish valid reasons supported by substantial evidence just- -38-