The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1894-12-07

+ho Canadian railroads under the same re-
s+,,o+inns as.imposed by the law upon the
roilroads of this country. Mr.. Daniels said
q Iaroa number of roads are being operated
Nv ,ha Tinted states courts today because
~ thair ba kruptoy. This is because the
roads endeayored to slaughter each other.
Mr. Reed asked why this slaughter went
Mr.. oariels-As it stands now it is one
railroad company running out another.
Mr.. Reed-"Is that desirable to have?"
Mr., DanieIs-"The remedy is with the
directors of the company, not by appeal to
Congress-.
Mr.. Reed-"That remedy does not seem to
have been applied.
Mr. Daniels-"Then it is sfor Ethe share
holders to elect other s.directors who swill
apply it,"
Mr.. Reed-''That does not seem to have
been applied. 1t seems to me that there is
sometime more serious behind this ques-
ton, which involves the principle of human
nature. This competition is inevitable un-
der the circumstances. 1t is sure to lead to
unrestricted competition. Now does the
gentleman regard the competition as the
sole governing power that ought to be in
voked?'
Mr.. Daniels-"By no means is it expected
that these railr Dad companies will observe
reasonable rules in reference to their COM
petition, and that their own interest will be
sufficient to restrain them from carrying it
to too great an extent.
Mr.. Reed Yet it has not"
Mr.. Daniels-'sThat is owing to the bad
management of the railroad directors"
Mr.. Reed-'This bad management seems
to be UNIVERSAL
Mr.. Daniels-''I should say not. Look at
the New York Central road"
Mr.. Reed stated that Mr.. Daniels had ad-
mitted the practice of cutting rates to such
| an extent as to injure competing roads ex-
| listed all over the country.
| Mr. Daniels said that was not due wholly
| to the management, but to the diminution
| of business. Mr.. Reed admitted that
| had something to do with it, and said that
| it was fact that these roads had been In
+ { competition. The question was. how to get
| them out OF rate cutting except by permit
| ting them to make an agreement. The
| roads say they were forced to compete to
| get business. Competition is beneficial to
| the people to great extent. but when it
| went to the extent of estroying the public
| facilities 1t was a disadvantage to the
| public. What the public wanted was to get
| a regulation which would give them suitable
| light and not destroy the institution. If
| freight ran down to SO low degree rail-
| roads we're destroyed or injured. They
| could not offer proper facilities, and the
| pu blic suffered in that direction the
| question what WIS the limit of competition.
| The gentleman from New York. said the
| limit was what the stockholders would
! stand, and the stockholders and directors
might be both governed by mistake
| notion of duty. It was fact that they
might be forced by circumstances to COM
| petition, which was ruinous. Pending the
| proposition was they should be allowed
under certain supervision to be run. The
| gentleman from New York said this would
result il rise of sprices. Experience is,
| that prior to the interstate commission there
| were years OF steady decrease of prices.
| Mr.. Reed thought a constant demand for
| lower freights had moIs tc do with lowering
| the rates than competition
| After an exchange of remarks with
Messrs. Bryan and Sickles. Mr.. Reed said
| 1T ought to be the object of legislation to
benefit all the people of the country. and
| in order to do that there ought to be full
| understanding of the ramifications and per-
| meations of business. It is not enough to
| say railroad is ''soulless corporation y
| and make an end of the matter. Railroads
are owned by human beings, who have in
vested money in them. 1t is of as much an
| advantage to a community to have good
| railroads as to have good mandatory, OF
| a good street OF any other good thing.
Legislation of the subject ought not te
simply say, low freights are good thing
| for the people who use transportation as
if that covered the whole question. 1t Ii
| very desirable to have railroads and have
| them in good condition. Railroads derive
life from what they get for transportation
If you take away them their livlihood yor
cannot expect them to continue institutions
| which will satisfy the wants of the people.
"a GOOD WORD FOR MAINE.
stExperience in Maine has shown us it i:
much more advantageous to have a united
railroad which furnishes transportation al
reasonable rate and furnishes every
facility for it than it was to have two OF
three rival roads cutting each others
throat. The outcome ss.of consolidation
there turned out far better thar
any anticipated. opposed the consoldia
tion. but | watched the result. found the
combination resulted in better stations
better trains and better transportation
facilities of every kind. Another littl
point worth considering is the question o.
the rights CT persons who own stock in the
railroads. They furnished the instrumen
tality which the people want to use. Per
hans they ought to have fair return from
their investment. All these things ought tt
he taken into account before the interstate
commerce law is passed. Two railroad
would compete until they came to an agree
ment. Wheher it is desirable to revive tina
right of agreement or not is a question tina
oua hit to be looked at in the light of all tn
lcoI siderations l have mentioned, becaus
competition is not the whole story in thi
world. Competition entirely unrestraine
and without possibility of agreement be
tween competing parties may result. owin
to human infirmity in the destruction o
botb Two grooers in town generally sci
| Goods at a fair average price, one as well a