The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-12-04
LEGALTzATIoN OF RAILROAD
POOLING.


is some months since the so-called
anti-pooling decision was given, but it
seems to have in no way disturbed the
railroad business of the country. Even
among the railroads there appears to
be no uniformity of opinion on the sub
ject. Speaking OF the proposition to
enlarge the powers of the interstate
commerce commission and to authorize
pooling, president Smith of the Louis
vile & Nashville railroad says:
The purpose of the proposed legis-
lation is not TO restore to the commits
sion something it has lost, but to give
it something it never ossessed-some-
thing it could not safely use, and
something that never should be given
to it. 1t is not possible for one, COM
mission to fix railroad rates, to settle
the numerous controversies between
railroads, shippers and cities; and to
DO so would be to endOW it with an
influence over the lives, prosperity and
future of our citizens such as no gov
eminent here and few governments
abroad have ever tried to assume.
Mr.. Chauncey N. Depew, president
of the New York Central railroad and
also of the Joint Traffic association,
does not agree with Mr.. Smith He
says that he (dr. SMITH has rail
road property which is peculiarly az
fected by the multitude of river lines
with which it comes in direct opposi-
ton, and he prasumes that that fact
to some extent influences his attitude in
antagonism to q railroad pooling law.
That may be, but that which influences
him is the same as that which inhu-
ences Mr.. Depew-his interest in his
own railroad. Speaking further on the
subject, Mr.. Depew says:
Now, prosperity, If it means anything
at all, means the distribution of wealth
among the many and over a large ter
/ ritOry. 1t certainly does net mean the
concentration Of wealth and power in
a few hands and in a few large cities.
! The pooling legislation which the rail-
roads are now seeking would establish
q uniform rate throughout the country
and bring Us back TO the old conditions
when the farmer shipped his produce
direct to the sales market and based
his selling price on natural conditions
rather than on the arbitrary rate fixed
! for him by a monopoly. Our PoDulisl
friends in the west see in the pooling
bill some benefit to the railroads, and
Tor that reason they oppose it, ignoring
/ the fact that it is of far greater benefit
to the farming interests Of the coun-
] try. One rate to the east over all rail-
roads would mean that every farmer
would be his own shipper and that
neither farmer nor consumer would be
at the mercy Of a middleman's mo-
nopoly.
1t is true that rate-cutting went on
under the interstate commerce law
even before the supreme court decision
and the reason for its existence Law in
the fact that evidence sufficient to es-
/ tablish legal case against any rail-
road could never be obtained This
/ evidence was not brought forward be-
| cause of the five-year term of impris-
onment to which any offender was sub
/ ject in case of conviction There was
a feeling among railroad men and ship
/ pers that that was a little too harsh,
and so they refused to give evidence
] against each other and could not be
compelled to. Under the Foraker bill.
4 ! believe, fine of $4,000 is imposed
upon any railroad for each offense, and
1 do not believe there will be any hest
/ fancy about testifying.
! When Mr.. DeDew talks about our
Populist friends in the west" opposing
pooling legislation because it would
/ benefit the railroads. but that it would
in reality benefit the farmers more than
/ anyone else, it is impossible not to think
he is talking a little like a demagogue
and disingenuously it is really I'M
worthy Of him. He admits that rate
! cutting did so on before the supreme
court decision, and that the reason was
! that enough evidence could not be had
to secure a conviction. If such a law
! as he fayors were enacted would not
! the rate cutting continue, and would it
not be just as hard to secure evidence
of the fact as it has been? Would there
not still be a feeling among railroad
men and shippers that any penalty inn
posed for rate cutting is too harsh?
In a recent address favoring pooling,
Interstate Commerce Commissioner
Martin A. Knapp said:
| How can rate cutting be stopped ?
| The most efficient and available rem
| ody for this evil, in my judgment, is
! legalizing pooling. The carriers should
| be permitted and encouraged to con-
! tract with each other for the movement
of competitive traffic, and thereby have
! it in their power to restrain and con-
| ably results in f1uctuating rates and
| vicious determinations. The benefits
supposed to result from railroad COM
| petition [ believe to be greatly exagger-
4, ated. Those who uphold the present
policy apparently assume that the pub
lie gets the same sort of advantage
from competition between carriers as
from competition between producers
and dealers generally. That is a mis-
taken and fallacious view, I am fully
persuaded.
Whether pooling would prevent rate
cutting is a mooted question That a
rate war means decentralization of bust
ness. if at all extensive and of any
duration, is a very plain proposition
But it is the railroads that begin The
cutting and no one else; and they do il
voluntarily and not under compulsion
A chief reason why there is a popular
prejudice against the legalizing of pool.
ing is the want of faith by the people
in the sincerity Of railroad agreements
There is more or less widespread be
lief that the railroads delight to hum.
bug the people.
This question of legalizing pooling by