The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-01-14


- law of competition. On all the renal
der of the road each company is
SO autocrat, a pure monopolist, chsrgil
S such rates ''as the traffic will bear
The unjust gains thus made cOnsfitu
at the fund with which the war of rates
81 carried on, and the ability to make the
y furnishes the motive for law, the al
r mtts beliandi. Destroy their power
% acquire these unjust gains, to recupera
(, losses incurred in a war of rates. by q
unjust assessment upon innocent psrtie
}, and no such wars viii be waged. Th
; same motive-the desire of gain-wi
: produce the same action in railroa
T transportation as III other pursuits o
life. Competition in the struggle fo
business will fix rates at that poin
where they are reasonably profitable
r and there they will remain.
Mr.. President. this brings me 70 an
other provision found in Judge Reagan
substitute and not contained in this bill
and which, besides being emiuently Jus
IN itself and proper protection to tht
public using railroads between nOu-com
petitive points, also furnishes the remedy
against cutting rates between competi
tive points, and makes legislation on this
subject harmonious, consistent and
effective. This provision. consists in s
prohibition to railroad companies to
charge more for q shorter haul than they
do for a longer one. The Senate viii
note and the country will note that the
provision is not that railroad companies
shall charge in proportion 10 the mileage.
Such a provision would be eminentlv
just if in addition there could be ascer-
tanned and allowed Just recompense
Tor the difference in cost and profit per
mile IN long aud short hauls. But this
intricate if not insoluble problem is not
raised by the provision. 1t does not
say that the railroad companies shall
charge only quarter or a half of The
Whole rate for hauling q quarter or q
half of the whole distance. 1t merely
| enacts the mathematical axiom that
| part Is not greater than the whole. 1t,
! however, permits the absurdity that q
! part shall be equal to the whole.
Now, sir, how any company or any
reasonable man can object 20 so mild, So
| generous proposition [ can not under
stand. 1t Is certain that when a train
| passes over the whole line it not only
performs the work of passing over each
| separate part and division of il, but also
OF passing over the whole of the several
| parts combined. 1t is impossible to con
ceive that it is worth more to carry the
| train over one-lourth the distance,
any one-fourth part of it, than
over the whole, since the latter involves
necessarily carriage over each fourth
part, and does exactly the work of the
shorter haul, and three times as mnch
more. But | have seen the argument
r9ssed, that on one part of the road
there may be an expensive bridge, or &
costly tunnel, or high mountain to be
graded, causing the cost of construction
or operation there TO be greatly in ex
cess of the cost in other parts; and
therefore it is unjust that the charge
for haul over part of the whole distance
should not be greater than over the
whole line. The plain answer to this
is, as before stated, the long haul passes
over all of this expensive part, as the
short haul does, and in addition over
the balance of the road.
But if it be insisted that in making
short hauls over different parts of the
same road that this provision would
prevent the company from charging less
| for a short haul over that part which
was cheapiy constructed than for still
| shorter haul over the expensive part,
| the answer to thai is equally plain and
conclusive. In the first place | answer
! that railroad companies do not regulate
their charges according to the cost of
/ construction, or even of operation. The
watered stock, the excessive debts, which
| have pointed out, these greater charge
/ for a haul over half the road than for
| haul over the whole show this. The
| further notorious fact that the greater
charges for shorter over longer hauls do
not result from nor are regulated by
any such considerations, but only by
what the traffic will bear" and the
presence. or absence of competition, also
| demonstrate it. The railroad companies,
| therefore, have no right, in order t.
| break down Just legislation, to invoke
| rule which has DO existence in their
own practice, and which they habitually
/ violate and condemn.
| There is another answer equally con
/ elusive. A railroad Is an entire thing;
/ it is a single and complete enterprise.
Its separate parts are but links IN the
/ same chain, each being essential to all
| others. That one link costs more than
another makes it no more valuable than
I
part of the work of the whole. That a
high hill has to be cut down or perfo-
rated by tunnel results only from an
operation of nature in placing more OBJ
structions there than elsewhere on the
plains; when the hill is so cut, or so per
| forated, it becomes as to the road but
the plpin which nature has made in
other places. 4 single link in a chain
4 80 -, al ~ Al
| others is worth no more than they, be
cause it may have happened as to it
that the ore out OF which it was made
was mined at greater depths and at a
more inaccessible place, and was pre-
pared by more costly processes, than in
case of the others.
Irepeat, / with emphasis, that this pro-
vision is essential to any ehectual
remedy Of the ills which this bill con
demns. The provision against pooling
may be evaded by combination or un-
derstanding, express or tacit, by which
rates are fixed. 1t will be difficult,
however, to maintain such a combina-
ton, as each road Will seek to secure TO
itself all the business it can transact,
and this struggle will lead to violation
or evasion of the agreement. This will
almost certainly be the result if the
through rates be made the standard by
which local rates are to be fixed. But, sir.
its greatest efficacy will be in its tendency
to fix all rates, through and local, at a
reasonable point. It certainly will pre-.
vent the destructive war of rates so
much feared if pooling shall be prohibit
ed, for it will be impossible for such
wars to be initiated or carried on when
the low competitive rates can not be
exceeded by the local charges. To make
! war with the certainty of self-destruc
ton is very different thing from wag
I ing it with the assured power Of turn
ing all its destructive forces against
! others.
Mr.. President, having answered tht
j objections to this provision, as well a.
: stated some Of the good to come from it
adoption, ] now proceed to some othe
considerations which demand, in ny
judgment, favorable consideration By
e the Senate.
The practice of railroad companies il
r hauling freight between competitiv,
I points, which are generally large cities
f at greatly cheaper rates than are de
Y manded for much shorter hauls owe
+ other parts of their lines, is in itself al
5 injustice, and injustice wherever j
: exists is a wrong not to be tolerated
f Railroads are in a great measure publ
+ institutions as well as private property
+ They do public work. They exist i
e virtue of special and peculiar grants b
i the State of franchises and privilege
i not allowed to the balance of the CON
f munity.
e The excuse for this is that they are
n public necessity and confer a publ
a benefit. In their public character the
d have been the recipients of bountie