The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-08-01

how you reconcile this position with
| the statement that you are mot OPP
posed to the railroads ?'
Permit me to ask also (again aSSum-
ing the correctness of your theory as
to the amount of original investment)
what you would consider a fair return
on this eight billions of dollars? We
have been that at present the return is
| less than 10 per cent on this amount.
Manifestly, you believe everything
that is earned should be paid out in in
terest and dividends because any earn
| ings that are put into the property are.
reckoned with as giving additional
value
Confiscation Is Proposed.
All the moneys heretofore earned
have been earned in accordance with
the laws of the land-the money clear
ly belongs to the owners of the prop
erty; they could have paid it to them
selves in dividends had they so desir-
ed; If, instead of SO doing, they de-
cided to re-invest it in the property,
taking securities in return, you pro-
pose to confiscate it, yet you are mot
opposed to the railroads.
l should like your authority for the
statement that in any ten years of the
life of this country the railroads have
issued three and half millions of Sc
curities for betterments and extern
SionS representing no actual cash out
lay. Inc Vagu0noSS OF the Sldl0II10uI
makes it impossible to refute it by ac-
tual figures, though I know it is I'M
true. A very little study of the facts
would satisfy you that there are few
industries in the United States that
have received as small returns in the
last twenty years as the railroads,
whether figured on present value or
on your alleged actual cost. There
are a few conspicuous examples of
prosperity due to favorable location
and rapid development, just as such
cases will be found in all kinds of
business, but you cannot legislate for
these alone.
It is a truism that the country can
not prosper unless the railroads are
prosperous, yet it seems necessary to
remind you of it. Not day passes
that we are not called on Gin Kansas
for instance) to spend money for
which we know we shall get no re-
turn. We are asked to pave streets,
to elevate tracks, to build new stations
and thousand other things that add
nothing to our revenue, but which are
demanded by the public safety and
convenience. Most of these things
should be paid for out of earnings. but
what if the earnings do not permit?
Favors Railway Regulation.
I am no foe to railway regulation
on the contrary I have always favored
it-but thus far it has not been under
taken with a judicial spirit. The sub
ject has been approached upon the
theory that the railroads were male
factors, and the regulation has taken
the form of persecution, with Senator
Cummins and his friends as chief per-
secutors. You have at last succeeded
in placing the entire responsibility for
railroads earnings upon the should
ers of the seven men composing the
Interstate Commerce Commission,
plus the railway commissions Of forty
five states, more or less; you have sue
ceeded in depriving the owners of the
properties of any considerable voice
In their management, while accepting
no responsibility as to results. Yet.
you and those who vote with you, will
ultimately be held responsible If
the conditions you have brought about
are not satisfactory to the public, as
they certainly can not be. Do not mis-
understandable railroads will do the
best they can, to the extent they are
permitted-but the limitations are not
of their making.
Yours truly,
(Signed) e. p. RIPLEY.