New-York tribune., 1884-01-17

that the other side had not yet been heard.
Nevertheless the mattsrs In issue are matters OF
fact, and can be demonstrated. II, as asserted,
the Lackawanna has pursued policy Of unjust
discrimination with regard to it's own customers,
| it can be proved, and the same remark applies
to the charge thatit has refused either to publish
tariff fits own or to accept the Trunk Line
tariff And If these allegations are true, 1t fol-
lows that Mr.. Fink is right in his assertion that
one railroad acting in this way can paralyze the
most careful combination, or dictate to it,
The whole situation, however, forcibly recalls
the prediction of Mr.. Charles Francis Adams,
jr., made some five years ago, soon after the es-
tablishment of the Trunk Line Pool, and be-
fore it was possible to form any conclusion as
to its results. He expressed the opinion then
that unless this pooling arrangement answered
the expectation of its projectors more COM
pletely than it then appeared likely to do, the
solution of the railroad problem would. have to
be postponed until In the natural course of evO-
luton it was determined by consolidation. The
Trunk Line Pool has, it is true, been more
effective than was then anticipated, but it is
not yet certain that it has not, by delaying con-
solidation, tended to postpone what the expe-
rlence OF other countries shows to be
the best practical adjustment of which the
railroad question is capable at present The
public dread of railroad combinations has been
based rather upon apprehension of the tyranny
of great masses of capital than upon experience.
As matter of fact, competition has always
been more expensive to the shipper than con-
s0lidation, for competition has always meant
reckless, costly war; TO be followed by truce or
alliance or absorption, and involving the pay
ment of heavy indemnity by the people, All
the fierce cutting" wars have been carried on
at the expense of the public, and, therefore,
consolidation has tended to economy and the
reduction of rates by eliminating the cost of
contests, and by enabling the consolidated
roads to be managed upon uniform and con-
sequenty cheaper system
In England and France consolidation has
solved the railroad problem already or nearly
so. The English feared it as we have, but when
it came about, they soon found that it was
decided change for the better. The danger of
such a contrivance as the Trunk Line Pool,
however, is that its cohesion is not assured,
and cannot be. As the present case shows, it
is almost at the mercy of any line which chooses
to pursue selfish, exclusive or Independent
policy. Whether it can carry out its threat
against the Lackawanna remains to be seen.
But if it cannot bring that road to terms it is to
be apprebended that the whole system may give
way under the pressure, and a general war of
the Old-fashioned kind ensue. The Trunk Line
Pool is no doubt a great advance on what
preceded it, but it lacks stability, and the
interests of the public rs well as those of the |
corporations require that abstinence from this |
mischievOus practice of cut-thrOat competition |
should be secured by more effectual guarantees. |
Legislation has thus far failed to furnish the |
needed security in this regard; but it is proba- |
BILE that the transportation question willie
ualy, by raising just such difficult issues as the
present, compel invested capital to seek more
protection by resOrting to that policy |
Of consolidation which has worked SO well else
where.