New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-05-07
FUTILE REMEDIES

This is the problem what is the solution?
The natural answer is, dissolve The combination
which has been made, prevent further conbi-
nation for the future.
This remedy has been tried and failed These
combinations have grown up in spite Of the
most rigorous laws to prevent them. The
American people loves competition. II has be-
heved that competition was the best regulator
Of prices, and it has sought 70 apply that prin-
cipie to the regulation Of railroad rates In this
legislators and courts have been in hearty ac-
cord There was the act Of 1887 against pool
ing; there the Antitrust act Of 1890
against the fixing Of rates by agreement. There
were the Trans-A Missouri decision Of 1897 the
Joint traffic decision of 1895 the Northern Sc
curities decision Of 1904 In spite of statute, in
defiance Of court decision, the monopoly is here
1t is not my purpose TO criticise the moral or
the legal quality Of these transactions. 1 simply
wish 10 call attention to the fact It is a fact
which can no longer be gainsaid that competi-
ton IN railway rates has practically dsap-
peared. There still remains in many instances
competition in service; there may be an occa-
SIGNAL rate war, Of which the recent disturbanl e
IN grain rates furnishes an illustration out
that is warfare which benefits nobody, wtit
results In no permanent reduction in the rate
the only effect Of which is temporarily TO dis
turb those business conditions which ought to
be permanent I deny that railroad competition
can ever Justly regulate railway charges II
may force down such charges TO a point below
what is reasonable; IL has done so in this coun-
try In many instances IN the past; but, whatever
its effect has BEEN whatever its effect might
be II il could be made operative it has gone
and never can return.
When the Interstate Commerce Commission
was prosecuting its inquiry into the Northern
Securities combination Mr.. Hartman was aslxad
what remedy a shipper could have against The
imposition Of an unreasonable railway charge
and his answer was that he might bring sI,it
and recover his damages. ManifestIy such a
remedy is practically worthless. Take that rata
which is of most consequence TO the agricultural
west. the grain rate. In the last six years the
cost 10 the farmer OF moving his grain to mar
ket has probably increased five cents hundred
pounds. an advance which in the aggregate
amounts to millions Of dollars annually As
sumo for minute that this advance was unjust.
what suit could redress the wrong? Who is
injured? Is 1t the farmer who produces the
grain or the mechanic who eats it? Who shall
bring the suit? Clearly, the man who pays the
freight and is alone entitled TO sue and recover
the excess has lost nothing by the transaction.
he is the middleman who buys and sells upon
the raSe. whatever that may be.
IN case OF discrimination the lawsuit is even
!ess effective because the damages are more
oifncult 10 locate and ascertain. The effect of
4 freight rate is all pervading 1t finds its way
INTO every part of the socitI fabric; its result
cannot be located. In the very nature of things
there is one way, and only one way. Ia which
the wrong can be corrected, and that is by COM
peilng the carrier TO charge a proper rate I'm the
arst instance This has been often explained