The morning call., 1893-02-03
FREIGHTS AND FARES IN THE
LEGISLATURE.

No one is surprised al the opposition of
the Southern Pacific and the other railroad
companies to Senator Gesford's cOnstitu.
tional amendment. These corporations
believe that they are fighting for their bread
and butter, and it is natural that they
should fight hard. II the committee is y OF
as thorough as the people expect it to
be It will not accomplish much. There
never was an interest which did not claim
that interference with It's monopoly meant
ruin 10 itself and to the community at large :;
but as a matter OF fact many interests have
prOspered through the imposition of limits
on their rapaeity by legislative authority.
Il seems to be ingrained in the mind Of the
average railroad manager that the public
is his enemy, and that as Denys of Bur
gundy said. it is his duty to tell the enemy
nothing but lies. The Southern Pacific
president announces with a flourish of
trumpets reduction Of local freight rates :;
but when the new schedule is examined, il
turns out that it only applies TO shipments
in carload lots on routes on which goods
are not shipped by the carload. So Mr.
Martin. the attorney Of the company, i'm
pugns the accuracy of Mr. Leeds figures
on freight rates in Kansas: who is likely TO
Uo ubdlcob the Liubus Ill expert VINO Is
familiar with the facts and has no object
in distorting the truth. or counsel bent on
making a case for his client? SO certain
officials or short lines claim that they are
not earning running expenses then why do
they continue to run irroads? Numbers
Of people embark 10 business and lose
money. while others right alongside them
conduct the same business and make money :;
is 1t not possible that these unproductlve
short lines might be productive if they were
in the hands Of smarter men?
The principle is clear that railroad car
riers may be controlled by public authority.
They are agents OF the State and can use
State sovereignty TO take property where
they will without the owners consent
Therefore. as agents, they are subject TO
State control. The only question is how
shall that control be exerted2 We have
tried several ways. We have exhausted
friendly remonstrance against exorbi-
tant rates The remOnstrance was always
CONTEMPORARY rejected, while the accumu-
latiOn OF enormous fortunes by the railroad
owners has proved that 1t was justified.
Thirteen years ago we tried the expedient
of a railroad commission which was to
arblrate between the people and the rail-
roads, and to curb the exactions of the latter
when they were intOlerable. The expert
ment was failure. One commission after
another fell into the hands OF the railroad
and merely registered its DEGREES. There is
no reasonable prospect that new commits
sion would be an improvement on its pre-
decesSoTs. The railroad can afford to pay
more than the average politician can afford
10 refuse.
Now. it is proposed to lay down a simple
cast-iron rule as TO fares and freights, ana
to compel the roads to live up to It,.
Why not try the plan? II it is found, after
experience, that it really Injuries the roads
without compensating advantage to the
public, the power that made the rule can
unmake it. Surely it Is not asking too
much of companies which have had their
own way for nearly twenty-five years, and
have by excessive profits realized millions
upon millions for their owners, TO give the
new plan two-year trial. They can hardly
drift into bankruptcy in so short time. II