The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-06-26
IHE REAL LOOP ISSUE.

IHE REAL LOOP ISSUE.
1t is impossible 10 tell from the trend of the dis
cusson that has been going on exactly what the OPP
ponents of the levee loop bill are proposing. The
criticisms the Terminal Association has had to meet
in the matter of what is known the bridge arb
trary sufficiently comprehensive but it has not
been made all plain that the bridge arbitrary offers
any reason why the loop bill should not be passed
The Republic is moved repeat what it has here
tofore said That the abolition of the bridge arbi
rary is reform TIE business of st. Louis
are fully justified in striving to achieve cannot be
denied 1t cannot with the undiscrimnatins
criticism INDUCED in by many of those who have de-
nounced the bridge arbitrary but it unhestatingiy
assents that there is evil of which St Louis
chants have right 10 complain and that it would
be good thing for the business of the city if way
could be found for the complete for the par
tial abolition of the arbitrary.
This question however. is not in any reasonable
view of the before the Municipal Assembly. The
question city legislature must consider is not
whether the bridge arbitrary should be abolished
should be merged in the through rate be disposed
of in of the other ways that have been sug
sested The true question is whether there is any
probability that the fourteen proprietary lines
trolling the Terminal Railway Association want the
loop bill much that they will be willing to give
up the arbitrary. in order get the desired Loop
connection with the Eads bridge.
The Republic has believed from the start. and it
believes that there is absolutely chance that
these railway companies will pay the price asked for
the Levee Loop if the Municipal Assembly attaches
provision requiring the abolition of the bridge arb
trary. If the question were that could be set
tied by the St Louis lines and did not affect the
great trunk lines. the result would still be extremely
doubtful But it does not concern st. Louis lines
alone. The of the great trunk lines must be
obtained and tariffs to all Mississippi River points
are involved.
The true situation, therefore. is about this: St
Louis rightfully complains that the mileage rate
which should be paid freight to and from the east
ern seaboard is unfairly increased by arbitrary
addition TO the cost of crossing the Mississippi
River. At the time it also complains that the
terminal facilities of the st. Louis railroads in
adequate and that the of the Eads bridge tunnel
as a passenger route is a nuisance Meeting these
complaints, the railway companies say that it is i'm
practicable at this time to abolish the bridge arb
trary but that they willing to the other
causes Of complaint. They offer to abolish the tunnel
us a passenger route and to eXpend millions of dol
lars in increasing the terminal facilities.
What should the Municipal Assembly do con-
froned with these propositions: Half loaf is better
than no loaf at ALL according to familiar proverb.
and so half of the reform demanded of the railway
companies is better than reform at all. The city
is like man who has both arms bound to his side
and whose captors offer to unite one arm but are
unwilling to unite both. What would be thought of
the sanity of the who would insist that he must
have both arms unbound neither?
1t is exaggeration of statement TO say that st.
Louis is grevousy in need of greater terminal facil
ties Business houses constantly complaining
that consgnments Of freight tied up for days de-
spite their protests. The injury to business growing
out of this situation cannot we'll be overstated In
stances might be recited in the of shipment
of carloads of skates held the other side of the
river until the opportunity sell skates had passed.
Innumerable similar instances might be referred if
necessary show that the business of ST Louis is
hampered and handicapped because the city has
grown faster than its railway terminals have de-
veloped.
1t is not necessary for The Republic to say that
the Terminal Railway Association doing all that it
could do to correct this evil. Perhaps it is not. 1t
is at least apparent however that every increase in
the terminal facilities will operate directly to help the
merchants who now complain of the costly delay in
the movement of their freight. No can be blind
to this fact that the business interests of the city will
benefit very greatly by the increased capacity the
loop connection would give to the Eads bridge. Nor
can any one deny the immediate and urgent mpor-
lance of carrying forward these Improvements with
the least delay possible.
St Louis needs the evee loop that the Eads bridge
may carry four times as many trains 1t needs
freer of the Merchants bridge. 1t needs the
lief that would from Il diversion of business
across the Alton bridge. if that is brought into the
system of the Terminal Railway Association. All
of these things are needed, not one of them alone.
and it is folly to say that will take none of them
unless get. in addition TO them. the abolition
of the bridge arbitrary. The course of wisdom is to
take what get and go fighting after
wards for the other things the present situation gives
chance of getting
INDIRECT RESULTS
Municipal ownership of public-utility concerns has
made the United States the progress to be seen
In Great Britain and other European countries. But