The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-04-03
RAILROADS R0BBING
Interstate Commerce Commissioner
Prouty Hits Them Hard.
HILLS DEFENSE OF THE MERGER
Claim That 1t Is Charitable IL u n
insult to the Intelligence OF
Thoughtful Citizens.
Special to The journal.

Special to The Journal.
Chicago, April 3--'Five men now ac-
tually control the railroads of the United
STAKES. There is no longer any real COM
petition. The only remedy lies In gov
eminent control of rat es set by the roads.
We are face TO face with railroad mo-
nopoly."
| In this way James A. Prouty of Ver-
; mont, member Of the interstate commerce
commission, talked of competition and
railroad rates. at the annual banquet OF
the Illinois Manufacturers association
at the Auditorium. He avered that the
railroad managers would rob the public
unless the government had some control
over the rates. The disbanding of mer-
gers, as suggested by Governor Van SAINT
and the attorney general, was decried as
impossible. The Cullom bill was favored
by the speaker. This provides that the
rates shall be made by the railroads, in
Vestlgared as to business by the inter-
state commerce commission and approved
finally by the federal courts. Mr.. Prouty
said.
| The ultimate danger which confronts us is
the excessive transportation charge: that this
! species or property, largely owned and entire
| ~ controlled by the very wealthy, will impose
! upon every other species of property, and
| therefore mainly III the end upon the poorer
| classes, an unjust tax. Monopoly has been
| odious in all ages, not because it discrimi-
mates, but because 1T EFFORTS We are face to
| race with railroad monopoly. Now why is it
| that whenj cost of transportation is decreas-
| ing. when tonnage is increasing when gross
revenues are steadily growing larger and net
revenues are still more rapidly gaining the
rate itself should also advance? AS I see it,
the reason is this: Because by various pro-
cesses there IS being eliminated from the rail-
way operations of the United States the factor
| OF railway competition.
Competition by Law.
II competition has been the regulator Of
railway rates III the past and that competition
| IS vanishing, what is the remedy? The natu-
raj answer is compel competition by law,
prohibit combinations by statute. That is the
remedy of Governor Van SAINT and of the at
| torney general. 1t be made an
| effective one. You cannot secure satisfactory
railway competition by law. You may COM
pei it in spots and by spasms. You may even
secure 1t, perhaps, upon the surface, but
actual effective competition, competition
which completes, will be thing of the
| past in the railway world.
! The gentlemen who are Derfectng these
schemes assert that there Is cause for un-
| easiness Mr. Hartman declares that compe-
! ution does not reduce rates or restrain the
! advance of rates. On the contrary his COM
hinations will lead finally to the reduction of
rates. Mr.. Hill asserts upon every Opportu-
nifty that his motives are charitable and that
! his great merger was not to make money, but
| to benefit the northwest. Such claims are an
| insult to the intelligence of every thoughtful
| citizen. Permit the railway operators Of this
| country to decide, unrestrained by compet
| ton. what their property shall earn, and
| they will in the long run rob the public. No
| amount OF sophstry disguise it; such a
condition is against common sense, common
experience and common deccncy.
Adequate Remedy.
| II you seek relief from railway monopoly,
| the answer is plain. The railway is d public
servant. Its rates are subject to public regu-
! lation. The government not only may bu.
should compel the charging Of just and real
| sOnabe tariffs. That remedy is perfectly ad-
equate, just and capable Of application. In
| that way and in no other can the dangers
presented by combinations, by the elimination
of railway competition, be dealt with. When
| there is some competent tribunal. clothed
with the power to inquire whether a railway
| rate is just and to make it just if found un-
| just the danger of combination largely ceas-
| es. You and I might prefer competition, but
| if in the very nature of the case competition
cannot be had, we must take the only remedy
| available.
| | believe that the railways should be per-
laitted to form traffic associations for the pur-
| post of agreeing upon and maintaining just
and reasonable rates 1t is impossible to con-
duct tie railway operations Of this country
without such agreement in fact. To permit
reasonable agreements Of that kind under
proper supervision is the surest way of keep
| ing alive what competition is still left. The
traffic association limits materially, but does
not extiuguish competition.