Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1865-1869, 1866-02-17
THE EXPRESS COMPANIES.
To The EIitor ofMe Nhia:

To the Editor Cftht Wing;
have read your editorial in reply to my
letter with pleasure. l an satisfied that you
have the good of the public in view. We
travel different paths, however, to reach the
same point.
You seem to think that the Railway cOmpa-
MES may be safely trusted with 4 monopoly Of the
Express business if the law will only es-
tabIish a tariff of charges to govern them
| Now, | grant that prices may be established by
the arbitrary interposition of the law as well as
by competition. But why do you narrow my
argument down to the mere point OF the rates
off charge In my opinion the question OF
nrice is the least important Of any question
ayo,cinq ont Of This great subject. For what
good will it do the public if the Legislature
grant the Railway companies this monopoly and
control them by 4 tariff of charges, unless 1t
90 further and devise q means by which the
Railway companies may be constantly held upto
that extraordinary and invaluable degree of en-
terpriZe and diligence, which the present system
of free and fair competition secures. 1t lSJuSt
here that the LeqiSldtarei is pOrerieSS, withall the
Mains and penalties which could be applied,
and upon which the advocates OF this bill rely
and it is Just here that you are silent. Do you
think that anything the Legislature could do
would goad the Railway companies into being
as aSsiduouS and attentive in serving the com
munity as the Express companies are now COM
PEELED to be, under the lash Of competition !
ManifeStly not. No legislation ever will or
ever can secure the public benefit as SatiStac-
toriIv and as elcctually as competition. Now,
let the Legislature give the Railway cOmpa-
MES the monopoly of Express carriage. What
will be the result Why, this p%eStilent "lack
of enterprise or accommodation which you
attribute to Railway companies, will still con-
tinue to characterize them the public will be
sadly wronged, and the Express business will
no longer be the great convenience and COM
fort of men of business.
l do not see why the railways have a right to
monopOlize the Express business. They have
err peceSsitate 4 monopoly of carrying over their
roads that is unavoidable. But because they
enjoy u monopoly to that extent, Is that any
reason why they should also have a monopoly
of the business of making personal delivery of
freight, which is the distinguishing feature of
the Express business 1t is true, as You say,
that it is the machinery and employees of the
Railway companies that do the carrying OF the
Express companies, and you argue that, he
cause the railways do the substantial ser
vice" they should, therefore, receive the
" substantial compensation" That would he
very well but for another consideration, which
YOU do not seem to appreciate enough mean
the public advantage and accommodation.
maintain that, If the service which the En-
press companies are now dong Is well and
thoroughly done by them, they should be al
lowed to do it, aud it is most irrelevant TO in
uuire who gets the profits, or whO does the
. substantial service" When | show, as |
think | do, that the public is best served in this
way, then what becomes of the claims OF the
Railway companies to 4 great monopoly, that
they may swell their dividends and increase
their power. The past history Of these Rail
way companies, some of which are continually
in a state of war with the communities through
which they run, gives little promise of an IN
crease of enterprise and energy, should thcy
succeed in their design. Now / ask the Legis-
lature, in the name of the people, and, with all
soherness and earncStneSs, which is best,
that the public should be thoroughly aud
diligently served and accommodated or that
the revenues of these Railway companies
should be increased That is the question l
insist. and it does seem to me that il anything
is demonstrable, is Selt-evident,l Il speak with
all due Difference to your Opinion) it is, that If
the business of Express carrying be confined TO
the Railway companies it will not be done so
much to the satisfaction of the people as it is
now. Why, what is the result of the rivalry
that is ut present going on in Richmond he
tween the Express companies? Business men
will tell you how much it rebounds to their con-
vcnicncc, for, in this struggle Tor supremacy,
these companies are continually devising new
facilities aud convenience TO attract patronage.
Now, who will dare assert that any such bene-
fits as these can grow out of monopoly.
And now l come to the question of the rates
of charge, to which you enormously coniine my
argument. What good is to be achieved by the
Legislature meddling with this matter ? Will
not competition settle it upon n proper basis
If YOU want to produce murmuring and diScon-
tent, it is by establishing rates Of charge by
law where competition could determine them.
Prices ever vary, and the public are always
willing to pay current rates without grumbling.
Why active competition in the Express buSi-
ness should not bring down prices l cannot
perceive, any more than l can see why the Lee
g~islature should interfere with this subject at
all. But if the subject needs regulation, let
the Legislature regulate it, which it can very
well do, and in that rag get rid of all The evils
and RconreDieRceS chich must enSue il The bill IN
question is passed.
| believe, Mr.. Editor, that | am speaking the
sentiments of the community, and that if the
objects of this bill were generally known and
understood, the voice of the people would be
raised in solemn protest against the bill becom-
ing 4 law.
FAIR PLAY M COMPETITION.