The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-02-25

The recent speech of Congressman .. w.. Underwood on the railroad rate measure Is regarded as unusually convincing. Mir. Underwood said in part;
 Mr. Chairman: New conditions require new laws. The conditions of today de- mand an effective governmental control of all railway rates.
 There was time in the history of the commerce of this country when the competition of railway eompanies con tending for the transportation of freight and passengers regulated the rates and charges of the eontending companies but that day has passed, the ownership of transportation lines is now concentrated in the hands of a few men, and the rate is charged that the traffic will bear.
 The competition of markets continues as long as competitive markets are served by competing carriers, but competition as a regulator of railway rates and as protector against unreasonable and un- just rates has proven failure in every country in which railway systems have been developed.
 All of the great nations of the earth save two tFrance and the United States) have adopted some governmental system for the control of railway rates. In the United States the congress passed law in 1887 that was intended to give the power 10 the interstate commerce commission To control rates, and it was so exercised by the commission for eleven years, when the supreme court of the United States, In 1898. declared that the powers granted by congress- were only advisory.
 Situation in Great Britain.
 In Great Britain the board of trade has control or regulates within certain limits the railroad rates. In Rosss Brit ish Railways: Their Organization and Management CLondon 19OD, this statement Is made
 Section 3l of the railway and canal traf- fie act dsss) provides that if man thinks a railway is charging him at an unfair or unreasonable rate for the goods he sends by It. or is in any way treating him in an unfair or unreasonable manner, he may complain to the board of trade, and that department, If the complaint seems reasonable, will call upon the railway for an explanation of it's action. Further, the railway and canal commissioners, by sec tion 10 of the same act are empowered to hear and determine any dispute as to the legality of any toll, rate, or charge for merchandise traffic, and to enforce payment of so much as they decide to be legal.
 In France the railroads are operated by private companies, which have concess- ions from the state. The proposition of government ownership in France has been much debated but has not resulted in any change of the system. A brief statement of the financial relations be- he fata he flt4fax f- eYt4r in the British diplomatic and consular re- ports, annual series, No. 3172, pages 16 to %
 In Germany the principal railroads are owned and operated by the state. There are some private lines but they are under government control.
 In Switzerland the railroads have just been taken over by the state in accord ance with the law of 1897, which took effect in 1908.
 In Italy the railroads have just come under government ownership and con trol.
 In Austria Hungary the government owns and operates most of the railroads. A general survey of the railroad system of Austria Hungary, with statistical ta- hles showing the operations for a series of years. is given In diplomatic and con- snlar reports of Great Britain, annual series, No. 3343
 In Belgium most of the railroads are owned and operated by the government. few lines are owned by private interest, but are under governmental control.
 The German Plan.
 The argument has been advanced by those who are opposed to this legislation, both in congress and outside of It. that governmental control of railroad rates by the German government has paralyzed the industry of the country; that to get away from the railroad monopoly they had created they were compelled to develop their river and canal system, creating a new monopoly to overthrow the old one. l do not confess this argument, l do not not admit that industry is languishing In the German empire; but I do concede that when they adopted a system of freight rates without limitation as to time or provision for changes to meet changing conditions they made a serious mistake, with the result that the shippers of the country who had been benefited by these rates claim they have made future con- tracts based on the existing rates, and thereby preventing changes to meet the growing demands of new markets. But this objection can not possibly apply to the terms of the present bill. for it pro- Vides that when a rate Is fixed by the commission it shall only last for three years and may be sooner changed by the commission.
 With all the abuse we hear heaped on the German system of fixing railroad rates, l have failed to hear anyone in weigh against the English methods of gov ernmental control, which are very similar to those proposed in the bill now before the house for the control of rate tariffs in this country. In fact the great rail- road systems of Great Britain have been conducted under a system of government al control of freight and passenger rates for number of years without harm to either the railroads or the great business and industrial interests of the country. The English railroads have made more money for their stockholders than the American railroads, and yet the com plaint Is not made that they are run In the interests of monopoly, and the pub lie are guaranteed fair and just freight rates by the government.
 It Is beyond dispute by anyone that the railroads in this country are public high ways, The history of the organization of railroad companies demonstrates this and the unbrolSen line of court decisions sus- tains 1t. It is true they might have been organized as private corporations. but they were not. There is not a railroad company in the United States that has not accepted it's charter on the basis that 1t intended to build and operate a public highway just in the same way that the old macadamized turnpike was built and operated as a pubic highway; and as a public highway the owners of railway securities can not deny the proposition that the people through their legislative bodies have right to control and fix the tolls on these great public highways so long as the rate is not confiscatory.