The record-union., 1893-02-07
TRAFFIC MANAGER GRAY.
He, Too. Presents some Facts and
Figures.

/ NAOSoCO Int COillDllllGt Wnen OOlOHtl
Barry had resumed his seat. Mr.. Gray
spoke as follows:
The distinguished Senator who intro
duced the bill now before your honorable
| committee, which was famed by the San
| Francisco Traffic Association, on further
consideration withdrew his proposition
Tor two cents per mile as maximum pas
senger fares, stating that he had been in
formed that three cents per mile was the
rate charged by large number of the
principal roads in the United States, and
was therefore willing that three cents be
| fixed as the maximum.
1t has been shown that the Act of the
Legislature under which the Nevada
| County Narrow-gauge road was organized
allows charge of ten cents per mile for
passengers and twenty cents per ton per
mile for freight.
So anxious was the community to Sc
cure this road, that the Legislature agreed
not to interfere with its rates until after if
had been shown that the road earned
more than twelve per cent. per annum on
the investment.
If ten cents per mile is considered rea-
sonable for the line from Colfax to Ne
vada City, which, while having grades. is
practically below the snow line, surely
nVe cents lJer mile is reasonable for the
line from Auburn to Truckee. with its
heavy grades, numerous tunnels ana con-
tlnuous snow-galleries for thirty-eight
miles.
II three cents per mile be reasonable
and the average fare charged, as we were
told on the great railroads of the Western
States, connecting large centers of popu-
latIon in such States as Illinois, Iowa and
Nebraska, will anyone contend that five
cents per mile is extravagant on the Colo
RADIO Desert between Banning and Yuma.
where the road is subject to periodical in
undations from the Colorado River. num-
erous cloud bursts, which make it very
difficult TO maintain a roadbed, and where
there is no local traffic of any kind, and
which for all business purposes might as
well be bridge or a tunnel?
II three cents per mile be reasonable
and the customary charge between CEN
tiers OF population in Eastern States. will
any one contend that four cents per mile
Is an extravagant rate between Reddinp
and the oregon boundary through the
tortuous Sacramento Canyon and over
the Siskiyou range of mountains. with
maximum grades ia feet to the mile? Or
that four cents per mile is unreasonable
between Bakersfield and Saugus over the
Tehachapi range of mountains and the
Mojaye Desert!
L think you will admit, gentlemen,
that different circumstances and condi-
lions prevail in this State from other
States; that variety and not uniformity is
The rule, and particularly is this the case
with railroads in their operations as well
as their construction; that the proposed
UNIFORM rate per mile regardless of char
acter Of road, would be unjust in the ex-
treme to mountain roads and roads in
desert or thinly settled districts.
Since coming before your honorable
committee the trainers Of this bill have
learned that two cents per mile as origin
ally proposed was unreasonable and
have admitted this fact. Would it not be
well for them to again investigate when
they will doubtless find that three cents,
which is the maximum charge on the
Southern Pacific lines through the great
valleys of the State, is also an unreasona-
bic rate to apply to mountain and desert
districts OF California; that such a rate
adopted as the maximum would be
unjust and sure to cripple small roads
and branch lines now in existence. while
effectually preventing the building OF
new roads in the future.
In view of the evidence already pre-
sented on the subject | think it would
be insulting the intelligence of this COM
mittee to dilate further on this point.
The facts as to our passenger rates, to
which we invite the Investigation and
criticism of all fair-minded men. sneak
for themselves.
The Manager of the San Francisco
Traffic Association, in his hearing be-
fore this committee on the evening of
January 23d, argued in favor of consti-
tutional amendment embodying a dis
tance tariff and classification to apply on
freight, which he would have put in
force on the railroads of this State.
MIR. Leeds has repeatedly compared
our rates with those in force in Kansas.
which seems to be his favOrite State: but
| notice that in constructing a distance
tariff which he would have adopted for
California he does not use the official
Kansas distance tariff, but rates very
much lower. We have not had time
since receipt of copies of this bill to
apply the new tariff to our business. or
judge accurately of its effects thereon; but
L can assure your committee that the
rates proposed would he disastrous in
! the extreme.
1t is proposed to ingraft in the Consti-
| tuition of the State to govern this tariff a
classification which is made by Eastern
people to apply on Eastern roads whose
| conditions and circumstances differ
widely from those in California.
The proposed rates can be shown to be
lower than those now used on any road
| on the Pacific Coast or on any road SINH
| larly situated as to grades. cost of con-
struction, or any of the elements which
enter into the expense of maintenance
| and repairs.
The Manager of the Traffic Association
| has made certain statements which have
been or will be answered by other officers
OF the company; but there is one state
| ment or allusion which has been reiter-
ated in certain San Francisco papers to
which l will refer, which L think was al
! together uncalled for. He reminds your
| honorable committee you are considering
the rates. which, as he understands them,
are within the limits of California alone:
| that it has been insisted that the Pacific
! Of ha
should be considered as a whole. includ-
ing Arizona, Oregon and other States.
| He tells you the Supreme Court of the
| United States has held that each State is
an integral part by itself. and as such the
State has power to fix rates ON all State
business; that you must not call on Cali
fornia to support business in other
States or Territories.
These structures are altogether unneces-
sary, because, while it might justly do
so, the Southern Pacific Company has
never asked California TO support roads
in another State or Territory. Facts in
dictate the reverse. Our printed annual
reports will prove our lines through Ne
vada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico
are self-sustaining. On the other hand,
our lines in the States and Territories
referred to are feeders of the California
line, bringing to it business which it
would not otherwise receive, and but for
| which IL WOul0 not be able TO operate as
economically for or furnish as good train
facilities to the citizens of this State.
Were TIE California roads not connected
with the East their earning power would
be very much diminished, as can be read
lily shown to any one who will take the
trouble to look INTO the matter. A little
thought on the subject win readily con-
! vince any Investigator that the States are
/ lnterdependent; that no State is, as Mr..
| Leeds puts it, IAN integral part by it..