Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1873-03-28

people and Virginia legislation, looking
primarily and mainly to the attainment of
that greatness which has been so often
|claimed by her sons and as often conceded
|by the wisest men Of other States as justly
our due. Such. | say, was the policy in that
day, and if we have in one instance or another
departed from it, it is not yet too late to re-
turn. Let us adhere to the policy in which
our public works were founded; let us re-
member the motives which prompted the out
lay of so much Of the public money, and let
us devote every energy to the enforcement
and enlargement of the application of that
policy which history. example and reason i'll
dictate as the only means whereby material
greatness can ba attained.
WHAT SORT OF CoMPETIrIoN rs DESIRABLE.
1t is claimed that competition is the one
thing most desirable. Competition, when
founded in a healthy condition of affairs and
lin a laudable, honest purpose, is conmenda-
BILE, but you have a record of the public works
to-day which exhibits the fact that nowhere
i'm Virginia can sufficient trade be found to
give more than bare support to the lines
ALREADY in operation. much less to suffice for
the maintenance of parallel lines.
+ Under these circumstances, is it to be ex-
pected that capital will come to Virginia on
"a mission of kindness to build railways
wherever the people may desire, and that, too.
when you take away from it every security
by giving to any and everybody the right to
Invade the trade area, from whence its sup
port is to be drawn, by the construction of
opposing lines? Will capital which looks
both to 50 ety and profit seek employmentin
Virginia when her Legislature shall have
placed it in the power Of any set Of men,
without regard to public right Or public
policy. to place at jeopardy the Investments
it may make9 No man can answer other
wise than i'll the negative.
have already directed your attention to
the rigid safeguards which in England are
thrown around the grant of a franchise.
Parallel or competing lines are not there in
this day allowed unless ana only where
it is demonstrated beyond the shadow
of doubt that the existing line is unable to
afford that measure of accommodation which
is indispensable to the public need. Reason
and experience have suggested to that Gov
ernment that competing lines. except under
the most unusual circumstances. are inexpc-
dient and unwise, and as | have elsewhere
said, Parliament itself has laid down the priu-
cple that the best incentive to the cotlstrlc-
ton of public works il security to capital,
good faith Oh the part OF the Government
towards those who engage in such under
takinga. LEA.
Such reasoning cannot fail to address itself
ito the intelligence Of every rejecting mind.
1t has TRANSFERRED that three separate appllca-
tions to Parliament to grant charter for a
railway from London to Brighton-the sea-
side resort for IIondon-have been refused
because, in the Judgment OF that great con-
servative Legislature. the public interests did
not require it. There was railway already
eXisting between these points fully able to
serve the public, and to serve it we'll a
reasonable rates. and wherefore, argued the
British Parliament. was the reason tor the
construction of a competing line.
COMPETITION WHICH DESTROYS EXISTING
RAILROADS Is HURTFUL TO THE PUBLIC
INTERESTS. U
! The effect Of competing linesis easily seen
Either capital will be deferred from further
investment in public works, such as might
Ibe profitable and yet remaining unbuilt. O,
the people will be taxed to support two
highways instead of one. Let lis not dis
lguise the fact that railways cannot be rlll
without money. There are inevitable eX-
Epenses which attend not only the operations
Iof railways but all the enterprises of life.
land if two railways are to be maintained
where there is barely more than sutliciency
Iof business for Que, those who depend fol
transportation on such lines must contribute
Ito the increased cost which two lines Will en-
ltail.. The price of a thingis dependent upof
its cost. The history OF competing lines il
brief and always the same. AT first fercs
with runorsly low rates, entail
ling loss to both, and after that either the alb
lsolption of one by the other, when the TEN
|porary benefits of competition cease, or !:
combination of both for self-protecton ane
existence. 1t has been forcibly said by thai
great railroad authority, Robert Stephenson
that 9 competition was impossible where
Iconbination was practicable and the truth
of that maxim is beyond the ability of sue
|eessful contradiction. Beyond these reason,
Eanother motive underlies the position as
sumed by the British Government which is
worthy of our serious consideration. 1t is
there asserted, and Justly asserted, that while
the public interests of that great country
did not require that Government should con-
Itrol her public works with view to profit OF
dividend to the owners, yet there was q
higher and nobler mission always to be OBJ
served in securing protection to her people
of securing for them facilities for transpor
ltation over her public works at rates reasona
lble and moderate to them and just to those
lat whose hands the service was required il
Iother words that measure of equal justice
(which secured the rights Of the people and O.
/ her public works as WELL