Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-09-02
THE FOLLY OF THE REPUBLICAN, coz.
vENTIoN.

Impracticable theory that railroad charges
should be based on what is called the cost
OF the service. We propose to show that
this theory is not only fallacious, but that
1t has been condemned and rejected by a
long series of authorities, and that it is
nowhere in operation. We propose to show
that the Republican Convention, in its
blind haste to surpass the Democrats in
Communism, has completely stultified
itself in this matter, by pledging itself to
carry out measures which it cannot by any
possibility compass, and by holding up as
benefcent proposition an exploded error
which, if applied, would beyond question
work only evil to the producers and the
public generally. We shall make it per-
tectly clear that the Republican platform
on the railroad question is hybrid mix.
ture OF dense ignorance, blind malice,
and reckless demagogism, and that while
its trainers have evidently aimed at excel.
ing that of San Jose in defniteness of state.
ment and specification of alleged reforms,
they have not advanced single idea which
does not cover some gross delusion, and
they have not proposed single change
which is practicable, or if practicable, which
would not injure the very interests they
are supposed TO be in behalf of.
The idea OF basing the charges on rail-
roads upon the cost of service, or the cost
/ OF production, as this method is sometimes
termed, is an old one. In England, where
every one OF our railroad problems has
long since been exhaustively examined and
analysed by parliamentary commissions,
this one has repeatedly been brought before
these bodies. In the last tAugust) mum
Der of the I" Fortnightly Review" there is
paper on " The Equalization of Railway
crates and Fares" which incidentally
treats of the same proposition, but only to
condemn it. The writer, I. II. Farrer,
is high authority on all railroad subjects,
and what be says represents the fullest and
latest experience of that country which has
| given the most attention and time to the
whole problem. Speaking of the "cost of
" service proposition, Mr.. Farrer says :
g. 1t is the old demand for equal mileage
" in new form. Equal mileage rates are
g at least Ineligible. But equal mileage,
urged upon the Royal Commission
/" OF 1867 and the Joint Committee of 1872,
"was SO effectually disposed of by them
that it is discredited, at least in this
:" country" Again he says: CAN rail-
"waya everywhere have some classification
"of charges dependent on the value, or
supposed value, of the goods conveyed
But putting insurance aside, it costs as
much, or nearly as much, to carry ton
" of coal or iron as a ton of tea or silk. Is
this distinction, SO universal, to be done
away with; and are the rates for iron,
coal, manure, stone, lumber and
g bricks to be raised go as to make ND to
" the railways for the loss they will sustain
"by decreasing the rates on silk, tea, fur
niture and manufactured goods doubt
&c if such a change will benefit any interest.
It certainly will not be for the advantage
Of the agricultural interest This, how
ever, is what the Republican Convention
proposes, and it has flung out this tub
to catch the whale called the agricul-
tural vote.
Mr.. Fa-rer concludes his examination
OF the g cost of service" principle with the
observation 1.-The notion of cost of
production when examined turns out
/" to be a chimera it affords no better
STANDARD for railway rating than equal
- mileage and may be dismissed as i'm.
"practica6Ie. Yet this impracticable
principle is the Que which the Republican
Convention has committed the party to,
and it invites the producer to come for
ward and vote tor its ticket on the strength
of the fact that it has proposed standard
OF transportation charges which would
ruin their class in six months If it were
ever put in operation. Having now shown
what high authority thinks of the I" cost
"of service" plan at the present time, we
will go back a little, and show what vari-
GUS California Railroad Commissioners have
had to say on the same question. We
shall in the course of this inquiry have
occasion to cite Messrs. Stoneman and
Doyle, and it will be interesting to see how
all the State authorities, as well as those
of Europe and the East, unite in condemn
ing the principle which the Republican
Convention has Just taken its stand upon.
In 1877 Messrs. Stoneman, Smith and
Doyle, In their report as Railroad Com.
missioners, asserted that: "Ths cost of
transportation cannot be made the basis,
"nor the profit On it the measure, of a
'proper charge for carriage, because each
| parcel of freight should also
bear its due proportion of
Unnecessary general expenses of the road.
" This it is impossible to ascertain without
considering the whole volume6f business
=" a thing liable to continued fluctuations,
=" and impossible to be known in advance.
"Cost of transportation, therefore, simply
50 fixes the point below which railroad com,
'panies cannot transport without actual
loss. 1t regulates only the minimum
"of charge" Again, the same Commits
siOners say We agree that 1t is not pos.
sible to regulate by General Act the
carriers charges on the basis either of
" the cost of the service to him, or its
"value to the customer" And Messrs.
Stcneman and Doyle concluded that the
existing classification of freight, though
open to amendment, should be retained,
as the best that could be done under the
I -.