The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1911-08-25
CITIES AND FREIGHT RATES

The following is from laoe
of the Times-Union:
finland cities of the west nav :
been complaining that coast to"n'
were being built up by discrlminaei'e
freight rates, and the Interstate cum
merce commission took up the SUI
iect. On one side it was shown tna'
a merchant in one town would pe
charged five hundred dollars LOT d
carload of freight that would be car
ried five hundred miles for nan as
much. Was this to be endured? Ger
tainly not.
"On the other hand, the railroad
pleaded that at the seaport IL was
Obliged to compete for freight Win
every description of water craIt ana
10 get anv business it must meet this
competition. What was to be lone :
Must the seaport dispense with the
service of a. railroad? Must the IN
land town be forbidden to buy from
the seaport?
THE New York Journal OF COM
merce explains the situation in these
words:
"'This. on the face of it, looks ike
a serious discrimination against tue
interior points and in favor or the
coast cities. 1t practically prevents
these interior places from becoming
distributing points for adjacent TERRI
tory along the railroad lines, in favor
of those farther east, or on the Fd-
cific coast. like ST. Paul and Seattle
still combining the illustration Tor the
sake of brevity to the Spokane case
and the northern railroad lines. Inc
same principle applies to the cases on
lines further south, the Central Ia
cific. Atchison, Southern Pacific, etc:
The plea of the transcontinental
roads in justification of the higher
| charge for the short haul is the COM
petition of water transportation from
the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. Ii II
costs so much less to carry commod-
tiles by water that in spite OF the
greater time required they will go
| that way rather than by rail. the
roads must meet the competition in
rates or lose their ranscontinentai
| traffic, or the bulk of it. That is not
| desirable for the intermediate points,
for, if virtually no revenue at all
| could be derived from traffic to the
coast, the charges to other places
along the lines would have to be still
| higher. The commission grants that
this water competition does exist and
is effective, and that it justifies low
er charge for the through traffic to
the coast than for the shorter haul to
places on the way"
So We are to conclude that in the
opinion of the interstate railway COM
mission the chief end of government
in this country is for those in author
ity to throw their protecting shield
around the railroads at the expense
and to the detriment of every interior
city from the Atlantic to the Pacific
and from the great lakes to the gulf.
Is that the right policy? Is it dictat-
ed by ordinary, common sense? Is
there any principle of justice in it?
Would a different policy be hurtful to
the railroads-would it not, indeed,
be the making of the railroads?
The most ordinary of us know that
the interior is entirely dependent up
on the railroads for the transporta-
ton of our freights. They know that
every pound of freight coming in and
every pound going out must be hauled
by the railroads, and it seems to US
that it ought to occur to those distin-
guished gentlemen occupying seats
on the interstate railroad commission
as we'll as to the managers of the rail-
roads themselves that the larger they
build these cities in the interior the
more freight they will have to haul.
Is that difficult proposition to I'M
derstand? Does it require one versed
in the higher mathematics to solve
II?
Suppose that DeFuniak, Mariana,
Quincy, Tallahassee, Monticello, Live
Oak, Greenville, Madison, Lake City.
McClenny, Starke, Hampton, Waldo,
Gainesville, Ocala, Sumterville Orlan-
do. Inverness, DeLand, etc., were as
big cities as Atlanta, or Jacksonvn.e.
or Tampa, would not our railroads
have to increase their capacity MANY
fold to do the business? So this shield
thrown around them by our kindly
disposed interstate commerce COM
missioners is really a detriment rath-
er than protection. 1t is hurtful to
every interior city, as well as to all
the railroads.
Why is the folly and the wrong of
discriminating against the interior
cities persisted in when if a different
policy were pursued it would result
IN the building up of these cities and
the building up of the railroads as
we'll?
Well. there are more people living
IN the interior than there are on the
seacoast, and it rests with them. If