New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-05-10
CENTRAL, TESTIFY.

TO- OF THE LAKE. SHORE, AND
y3EpYARp, OF MICHIGAN
CENTRAL, TESTIFY.
a, United States Senate Interstate Commerce COM
.ssse began its fourth day Of investigation az inc
rifYA Avenue Hotel yesterday morning at III ooooA'
Esussor Hiscock absent, but Senator Barbour az
landed the meeting for the first time ana tooA d"
scsve part In the examination. Governor LsFF@0oo,
d Iowa, remained an interested auditor ior so'o'"
hours The first witness called was G. B. Roberts, Oh
~. pennsylvania Railroad. After saying that he
h.a been In the railroad business for thiHy-elgh'
yesrs Mr.. Roberts gave the termin Oh the fenns!r
wanda together with the feeders which IL c'h,'onou
The Pennsylvania Company, he said, had no rei@Iohs
with any Canadian road In answer 20 sehA'or |uhn'
he stated that since the Government haa uhucrtdAen
to regulate the American lines he could NOT out 1901
that the Canadian lines had the advantage Ihey
wer, mo. Subjected TO the same restric ions. His
rad. however, had noe suffered directly They had
felt. pevertheless with others the influence OF the
Grand Trunk ANY severe depression OF rates upon
one line affected a certain extent all oIher hnes'
The Grand Trunk people were not eonpoheo py
American laws, and the moment the Hano on tnst
road left the border of the United States they could
frost ,t as they wished. He would not claim that
they were acting incorrectly at present. But they had
formsriv caused the Pennsylyania Inconvenience.
Upon the WHOLE however, he could not say that the
Canadian railroads were at present injurious to
American interests but they were In position 10 be-
come so Of any time. So far as the economy Of
trafHc was concerned, he felt that the Pennsylvania
could compete with any other road between Chicago
and New-York. The case was different with tbs
Canadian roads The latter subsidized they were
built to develop the territory and thus the American
roads were forced to compete with the Dominion
6ove-upent They had also an incidental advantage
M drawing their material from the mother country free
M duty They obtained capital also at lower rate
than the American raIlroad managers Mr.. Roberts did
no, know that the Grand Trunk had gained rapidly
ip trasae Of late, one witness states. 1t would
not be surprising, however, he added. Mr. Roberts
vas president OF the Trunk Line Association of which
the Grand Trunk was also member With reference
b difierentias, he said that the Grand Trunk had
always maintained their right 10 lower rates, or in
other words, 70 make dherentials They assigned as
reasons the greater length Of the road the poorer
facilities and fewer accommodations. he could not
say what the diferentals we're. The general under
standing was that they made by consultation With
the officers Of other lines He thought 1t emiGently
advantageous to the public that the Trunk Line AssucA
don should remain 1t insured greater publicity ano
stability Of rates, and moro reasonable rates. What
was advantageous the public also advantageous
10 the railroads At present the rates were too low
The Same good service could not be given in ex-
change for them. Rate wars would ensue, however.
we're this association abolished
BErTERDD BY RESTRICTION.
He thought that the condition Of railroad affairs had
been betered the passage of the Interstate law
Honesty prevalent, although he would not
say hat railroad men were less upright than other
men In fact he thought they were head and shoulders
shove the average man in that respect. 1t was
true that the laws we're evaded. That was natural.
After allowing the railroads to grow unchecked in
their own way. the Government suddenly thrust
law upon them which necessarily changed the
manasement. A law should have been enacted long
age. That would have been easter. 1t was
However better late than never" The time was GER
txinly ripe for some Governmental control.
Returning TO the relations between Canadian and
American roads, Mr.. Roberts said, In answer TO re-
quest 10 stste his views as 10 an amendment TO the
ipterstafs law that he thought Canadian lines should
be subjected the same laws the American lines.
Otherwise they should not be allowed TO do business
ID the United States. He could not understand why
IN exception msde in favor Of railroads as against
he cosstw1ss trade of steamers He thought
the same law should govern both the
railroads and vessels. He declared himself In favor
Of the removal Of customs house duties, however,
and commercial union. The United States would
have the advantage in that. and he cited instances
10 provo his statement Revering to the subject Of
competition with Canadian lines, he thought II moth
pg else would do II might be wise to exclude them
entirely; that Is that law should be passed pro-
,ibtlng foreign roads from carrying American traffic
The American people would not suffer from such
Tho rates could be regulated Just as well
Without tho Canadian lines.
He thought that the present law was roweriess
o prevent abuses on the other side OF the border.
10 did not wish, however, to reflect upon the man
.gcment Of the Canadian railways. He would only
az that evasiops OF the law possible, that the
,resent Law could not prevent thsm.
AS 10 the advantage Of the subsidized steamers !
FNyvoxg In ofaUktl
hey would enable them to control the trade much |
more easily. They would have the first call" |
20 10 speak upon tho AsIatic trade. He thought ID
unjust that American lines should be forced to COM
pete with snch odds against them. The United States
'houd subsidEe American steamers also.
NOT A FRIEND OF POOLING.
His opinions as to pools differed somewhat from the
'ther witnesses. They had cost great deal Of
money: they did not serve the purpose which they
Eere intended to There was nothing TO en-
oree the agreement They tended to 10
.reaso the construction Of competitive lines.
II the Unlsed States Government took paternal
interest IN the roads II the State Governments should
vet in . more friendly manner toward them and 10
apitaI might be diverted from building unnecessary
Dads the railroads of the United States would pros
,er more. He not prepared to admit that legal.
ned pooling was advisable. The pFeeont law should
ret fair trial, Mr. Adams had said in his test
nony. The natural result Of combination was TO In
ease the price Of commodity 10 those outside OF the
ombinstion. Pooling aid not accomplish its desired
fleets, even prior to the passage Of the law. The
ereenents were kept, the amounts promised were
aid, but despite these facts the rates were de
,oraliEed1
Mr.. Blair then interposed few questions attempt
" 10 get an admission from Mr.. Roberts that combi.
atom rather than competition. despite the breaking
contracts IN part was the proper business prinG
pio for railroads but Mr. Roberts answered that there
as too much logic In that Pools tended TO pre-
snt the nstural development Of the various roads.
. preferred well regulated competition under proper
.ws 30 any form OF combination. When asked by
,nstor Blair whether local traffic or through traffic
as mare profitable 10 the Pennsylvania road, he an
sered In favor of local traffic. which amounted to 90
or cent Of the whole tonnage. The Pennsylvania
sd had been subjected for years 10 q restriction
ssiar 10 the long and short haul clause OF the
,se rststa Connerce law which had been enacted by