The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-07-30

Ohe Oh the most momentous decisions
which the American people have ever
been called upon to make, and one
which must be made in the near future.
has to do with the transportation ques-
ton transportation affects the prioe
or everything bought or sold by any
individual citizen. 1t limits the terri
tory tributary to the trade of every
| city. 1t determines the development of
| the natural resources of States. More
! IMAM any other one thing. It fixes the
share obtained by any nation in the
commerce OF the world. It's subtle. all
pervasive. far-reaching, unacceptable in
iiuence. equally potent for veal or
woe, extends alike to the interests of
the humblest toiler and the mightiest
| empire. 1t is n fundamental necessity
OF civilization. standing second only
TO agriculture, and 1t is as Vital to
commerce and industry as the blood
is to the body. 1t necessarily follows
that the transportation question mer-
us the most careful consideration of
the citizenship and the best thought of
the craftsmanship of the country
In recent years an increasing appre-
cation by the general public OF the
vital Importance of this question has
led TO the growth of a great movc-
ment looking towards the improve
ment OF our inland waterways, in ad-
ditton to the continued development of
iake and ocean harbors. Some OF the
icadinE railroad men of the country
among whom may be mentioned James
j. Hill. of the Great Northern: James
T. Harahan, late of the Illinois Cen
! trail, and w. W. Finley. of the South
ern Railway have repeatedly gone on
| record in favor of this movement.
which they recognize as designed not
10 supplant, but to supplement- the
railway as carrier.
In the main. however. the allied rail-
way interests of the country have al
| ways opposed the movement. Until
recently their opposition has been car
| ried on by methods which were silent.
secret and sipuous. 1t Is striking
testimonial to the Roadway which has
been gained by the waterway move
ment-a testimonial all the stronger
| because of Its unconscious and unin-
tentional-that all the railway jour
nails. all those periodicals which,
| while rfomiEaliy independent, always
take the railway side in any contro-
Eersy, and many railway presidents
and other high officials are now fight
Ing III the open against the proposed
| development of waterways.
| Many of the arguments advanced by
those who wish the railways to have
monopoly of all traffic except that
necessarily carried by wagon. are
moro ingenious than ingenious. Just
now much stress is being laid upon
the claim that the total cost of trans
portation is greater by water than by
rail The Railway Age Gazette re-
Gently said editorially:
"The fundamental question that
ought to be settled before the gov
eminent of the. United States engages
| in extensive development of inland
| waterways is whether the total cost of
| transportation on such waterways, is
or probably can be made. less than the
total cost of transportation by rail IL
or can be made. The rate that the
| shipper pays to the railways
| covers the total cost of transportation
by rail. The rate that the shipper pays
| to the owner of boat covers only
! return on the investment In, and the
operating expenses OF the boat To
arrive at the total cost of water trans
! portation there must be added to this
expense what the public pays in taxes
for the development and maintenance
of the waterway. Therefore
comparison between tho rates paid by
rail and by water gives no clue to the
| relative cost of transportation by rail
| and by water"
! The writer of that editorial has mis-
taken spur track for the main line
| The fundamental question to be set
| tied before the government of tho
| United States engages extensively in
! development of inland waterways is
whether such development would, or
would not, benefit the people. The re-
| lative total cost of rail and water
transportation is simply one of num-
| Der of questions collateral to the main
| question just stated. Nevertheless,
! II is worthy of careful consideration,
| especially as those who are unfamiliar
| with the facts may DO misled by the
half-truths stated. and the unfounded
claims made by those who advocate a
monopoly of traffic by the railways
One of their arguments runs about
! as follows:
| The average rate per ton-mile on in
land waterways is about six miles in
| France, five miles in Germany and six
one. half miles in Belgium. Government
| expenditures for the ntenancc OF
canals and improved rivers. and for
! interest on the money expended for
| their development amount to mills
| per ton-mile on water borne traffic in
| France, to 4.6 mills in Belgium, and to
81 of mill in Germany. or If the
! Rhine and the Elbe be left out, to .
| mills per ton per mile. This makes the
| total cost Of transportation per tom
mile 10 mills In France. IL mills in
| Belgium and mills In Germany. The
average rate on the railways in the
| United States in 1909 was 1853 mills
! per ton per mile That Is much less
| than the cost by water In France and
Belgium and only little more than %
per cent, higher than the average cost
In Germany Therefore Eve are en-
pected to conclude), the only safe. sane
and sensible thing for the American
people to do is to fill up what canals
we have LETT, abandon our rivers to
the muskrats and turn the whole bust
ness OF transportation over to the rail-
roads. What they can't carry can lie
and rot.
To begin with. the figures above
given, which purport to show the aver
ago price paid for transportation by
water in the countries named. are
neither official nor accurate. They are