The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1909-09-05

rope but almost IL per cent
higher than those paid by the
protected manufacturers of the
United States? Perhaps the fact
that government statistics, as an
alyzed by Mr.. Logan G Mcpherson,
show that in 1906 the net returns of
! the railways of the United States /
were per cent and the net returns
of the manufacturers Is per cent, may
have some bearing on this question.
| The explanation usually given OF
the wide difference between the way
/ that government and public deal with
manufacturers and with railways is
/ that manufactures are strictly pri-f
vate concerns, while railways are
quasi-public corporations and are
/ therefore properly subject to strict
public regulation and control. But
this explanation is juridical, not eco
nomic or equitable. It tells why the
| government legally can deal differ
emily with railways, but not why 1T
should and does. Speaking morally
/ and economically. it would seem that
the government has as good right
to regulate and strictly control manu-
facturers who. by a protective tarif
1t has enabled to build up large busi-
nesses, to charge high prices anc to
make large profits as it has to regu-
late and strictly control railways be-
cause they are common carriers and
exercise the power of eminent do.
main
The true explanation of the differ
ence between the ways that these two
great industries are treated is histor-
ical. Thirty-five years ago national.
state and municipal governments and
the public We'd in giving public lands,
subsidies and exemptions from taxa
; ton to promote railway development,
. just as protective tariff is now
!, levied to foster the development OF
manufactures. The change in the
!, treatment of railways is due largely
to their own faults and offenses. Each
J railway passes through numerous
/ communities where there is no other
) line. The roads in many instances
abused their power by discriminating
: unfairly against the communities
where they had a monopoly and
, in favor OF communities where
+ they met competition. They also
: wrongfully Disseminated between
s shippers. Those who owned con-
. troll Of the roads usually lived dis
s tant from the properties and the peo-
i pie of many communities grew to re.
g gard them as oppressive absentee
j landlords. The result was the "Grang-
t err" agitation and legislation of the
!. seventies, the Interstate Commerce
n Act of 1887, and the Elkins Act OF
!. 1903. This legislation made unfair
r discrimination of every kind unlawful.
III The big shippers and the competi-
n tive points, finding that the unfair ad.
) vantages they had enjoyed were be
e ing taken away, Joined with the small
D. shippers and the noncompetitive
r points in demands for action to con
b troll and reduce all rates which result
s, ed in the Hepburn Act OF 1906-givine
d the Interstate Commerce Commission
ID power to reduce, but not to raise
lie rates-and in the wave of state anti
1T railway agitation and legislation IL
n 1907. The fundamental cause of al
IN the legislation for the control Of rail
e, ways undoubtedly was the feeling o
In the public that they were natural mo
s. nopolies against which any individual
was powerless to protect himself, ant
Is that their power was being abused.
OF The mandatory. on the other hand
i'd is not natural monopoly. If it treat
Sc it's customer, unfairly, they can usual
i'd ly buy of somebody else. Formerly,
,e- was a large manufacturing bushes
n that represented as big an inyestmen
tn as small railway. People, therefore
% did not fear the power Of manufactul
ed ers as they feared that OF railways
es The owner Of the factory formerl
at was usually citizen of the immediat
he community, in whose success hi
he neighbors took personal interes
er and pride. Manufacturers are ais
he larger employers of labor than raj
Id ways. The investment represented b
nd manufacturers and railways in thi
m. country in 1905 was almost the same
~ being for the former S13,87G, 900 ,00t
to and for the latter s13,so5, 100000 TIL
he railways paid higher average wag
vs. and laid out larger percentage c
M their gross earnings in wages. Blu
,m the total number OF persons employee
,es by manufacturers was 100000. a
compared with 100000 employed b
,or the railways. Manufacturers ais
ne have always taken more pains to sho,
it their employees wherein their int
tut ests are mutual and consequently
ail- large majority Of the employees
ill protected industries can always b
ct, relied on to vote for candidates VIII
all favor a protective tariff
lat In recent years some importar
to changes have been taking place |
ers manufactures. Large combination
he and corporations have been gettin
in practical monopolies of several line
,c- Of manufacture. and the individu;
=. | f-runar or merchant hoe haoup "a n.