The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-08-14
BALTIMORE.
TUESDAY, AUGUST IA, 1860

ness, are THESE
That when the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
brings through Baltimore on its way to New
York merchandise which would otherwise have
certainly gone to New York by another route, 1t
t.brincs to Baltimore trade which would other
awise have gone to New York." and therefore
does moi discriminate against Baltimore
> That If the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad by
reduced rates of freight, should bring Western
nroduce 10 Baltimore to a market, ''the producer
t,on the line of the road would complain that this
verv discrimination in favor of Baltimore operat-
Ted AGAINST him. because it enabled the Western
s;nroducer to compete with him in the markets of
t'this city,
3. That the question Of railroad transportation
stas often involves the selection of route as of
s'1aqrId, when there are competing lines to the
"seaboard'' and that if the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad does not, by its rates, invite merchandise
which is destined for New York to go there by the
Baltimore and Ohio route KIT loses the chance of
chat flow of trade which is the great element in
''the prosperity of railroad route"
We state these propositions fully, fairly, and in
good faith, and we ask our readers to consider
them, separately, with u.s. in the same spirit:
l. As to the doctrine that when Mr.. GARRETT
brings through Baltimore, on its destined way to
New York, merchandise which would else have
gone to New York by some other route, he brings
to Baltimore ''trade' which would otherwise have
gone to New York, and therefore does not dscrim-
mate against Baltimore.
We are quite at a loss to understand what our
neighbor by this, unless it regards Grade
and merchandise the same thing, and going
through Baltimore, as identical with stopping there
The very proposition stated assumes that the merch-
andize is not to stop in Baltimore. 1t is to go to
New York, and only to pass through our city, on
the way. 1t is therefore neither bought nor sold
here. 1t pays nobody here, except the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad and the other carriers who
transport it hence to its destination 1t helps their
Grade but it certainly helps the "trade'' OF no.
body else; and unless, therefore, the "trade' of
the railroad companies is synonymous with the
Grade of the city, it seems very obvious that
bringing, through Baltimore, merchandise bound
TO New York, ''brngs TO Baltimore no Grade
at all. Consequently, when our neghbor argues,
that in tempting New York merchandise through
Baltimore, by reduced comparative rates of trans
smore and therefore does not discriminate against
Baltimore, it does nothing more than illustrate
Mr. CARROTS own unfortunate idea that the Bal
timorc and Ohio Railroad and Baltimore are the
same thing and that when he does not discrim-
nate against the road and its trade he does not dis
criminate against the city and the city trade Now
we have no objection to regard the city and the
il,a daJ 4 bo
icy of the road be governed by the interests of the
city, as it ought to be- but it, the contrary, the
interests of the city 10 be treated as altogether
subsidiary to what Mr.. GARRETT chooses to make
the policy, supposes to be the advantage of the
road, then the sooner a distinction be drawn the
better. And as long as Mr.. GARRETT brings no
Grade to Baltimore but what he pockets himself,
we shall insist that he may discriminate against
the trade of Baltimore even although the railroads
trade and finances may be temporarily improved
by the operation.
2. The second proposition, which we have
quoted, is, if possible, even more peculiar than that
which we have already disposed Of 1t endeavors
to set off the producer on the line of the road"
against the market at the end of it, and ustifes
Mr.. GARRETT in not bringing merchandise to Bal
tmore, which is to stop there, as cheaply as that
which is to 90 farther North, by the innocent
suggestion, that 'lhe producer on the line of the
road would, in such case, complain of being
cheated out of the advantage of his natural posi-
ton. lie would, says our neighbor, "complan
THAT this very discrimination in favor of Balt-
more, operated against him, because it enabled
the Western producer To compete with him in the
'markets Of the city" Now, as we have taken
pains to say distinctly heretofore, we are fighting
the battles of Baltimore at this time, and not those
of the way-trade. But does it not occur to
our neighbor, that the best way of silencing
the complaints of the producer on the line
''of the road ;" in case he should make any,
would be to bring his merchandise to mar
ket, at the same or nearly the same freights
pro rata, rs the merchandise starting farther
West? If he grumbles about your discrim-
mating against him--then cease so to discrimi-
nate-that is ALL You may be compelled, or find
1T expedient for good reasons analogous to those
fairly stated in our last, to charge the way
customer q little more pro rata, than the Western
customer-but the way-customer is so much
nearer the market, that he can bear the higher
charge, if it be reasonable, and command the
market, or compete in it, notwithstanding. 1t is
not true, therefore, that by discriminating, In the
West in favor of Baltimore, you necessarily dis
crimnate con the line of the road" against the
agriculture and industry at work there. Proximity
to market is fact which you cannot "discrimi-
mate" away, without the grossest Hdiscrimina-
'tion against it, and no administration is fit to
control great work of internal improvement like
ours, which cannot at standpoint in the West.
discriminate in favor of Baltimore as between Bal
tmore and New York, without discriminating
injuriouSly against the way-trade, as between
it and the Western trade
3. We come now to the last proposition. on
which we commented in part, in our article of
yesterday. 1t is Mr.. GARRETr's Achilleum-hs
argument unanswerable. In our poor Judgment
the answer to tits sufficiently palpabe. The reason
ing amounts to this and no more If merchant
or producer has goods in the West which
he designs to send to the seaboard he looks at
two things before he determines precisely to what
point he will send them. Those two tbings are
the market to which they shall be sent, and the
route by which he shall send them there. IF he
determines to send them to New York, he has dis
posed OF the question of market and nothing is
leit out the question of the route Now-says
MT. JARRETT, or our neighbor for him-if the
western man has already chosen New York as
MS Market IN preference to Baltimore, the dis
crlminatlon on that point has been settled The
western man, and not the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad, has Disseminated against Baltimore no
market, and all that the Company has to do, is to
induce him to select the road as his route II oupbt
TO persuade him to do so if it cantor otherwise
III loses the chance of that flow of trade" which
Is so important to it, and "does not oet tho
business" All this is very well, so far rs if
goes; but 1t does not 60 far enough 1t does not
Slate the whole case. Nay more-it separates, for
the purpose of discussion, the market and the
route 10 market-two things which are insepara-
bic, andcan only be fairly and sensibly consd.
cred or discussed together. What constitutes tho
value OF market TO party who has goods for
sale! Surely nothing but the amount of
profit which it pays him. As we said in our
ast-the gross price which the market paws is not
the sellers test of market-the net profit de-
Lermines that question. The seller does not care
to get twenty-five cents more for his flour in New
ork, than in Baltimore, if he has to nav fifty
cents more to get it to New York than TO Balt-
more. lie must be pretty obtuse, if he does not
see, IN such case, that Baltimore is a better
market for him at the lower rate, than New York
tha I.e.l,z