The Washington times., 1913-07-22
FREIGHTs AND WATER COMPETITION.

on side, and the Eastern railroads on the othe
side, is the big question of whether natural advar
tages and facilities TO be counted in favor {
cities enjoying them. Washington and Batimor
originally were granted free freight delivery becaus
they had advantages which entitled them to it.
Washington and Baltimore are the natural gate
ways between North and South The railway sy
TENS of the South come up to peak at Washingto
and Baltimore; those of the North narrow down
the small end of a funnel, draining everything fc
the South into the laps of these twin gateways Ea
of the Aileghenies the routes by rail all pass hroug
these cities.
Not only this; but Washington and Baltmor
have the vast natural advantage of tdewater locs
tons; excellent facilities for doing business by ocea
and the tidewater streams. Thus their merchant
may choose between rail and water facilities an
this, together with their peculiarly advantageous rs
laton to the rail systems of North and South, give
them superior status that cannot be overrated.
Are these two cities entitled to reap the advar
tage of their situations?
The answer is plain. If they fight for an
insist upon that advantage, they will get it.
they meekly submit, they will have it taken ava
from them.
Let US see what this means to a city; this fat
of being located where system of railroads end
and another system begins. Chicago is the grea
est railroad center earth. Here the Eastern sy:
tens end, the mid-Western begin; here is breakin
of bulk, reorganization of trains, the advantag
of water competition via the Great Lakes. Whs
have these advantages meant to Chicago?
Merely this: they have made it in two geners
tions the most wonderful development of CONNER
cial activity that the world ever built
Then look at Kansas City, St. Louis, Omaha, an
the Twin Cities. What makes them great com
mercial centers?
Exactly the same thing: one group of railroa
systems ends and another begins at these termins
cities They are the tunnels into which the traffi
of continent is concentrated it moves The
couldn't help being great cities.
Baltimore and Washington, between them, hav
all the natural advantage, regarding trade betwee
East and South, that Chicago has regarding trad
between East and West They have both water com
petition and the concentration of railroad facilities
Shall these two cities give up that which has TO
generation been conceded to them by the railroads
No city in the land would do that.
1t is arrant nonsense now to allege that thes
special considerations which were extended to Wash
ington and Baltimore many years ago were not givel
as means to meeting water competition. Everybod
familiar with commercial and transportation con
ditions and traditions in both towns knows that ta
was exactly why free delivery was granted them.
Ii is impossible to believe that Washinetons cas-
before the Interstate Commerce Commission wa
handled as it should have been. In proper pre-
sentaton of that case, this fact of water competitive
conditions would have been made the chief feature
Instead, that point was merely suggested in th
record" 1t ought to have been the whole case. Th
commission decided merely on the question of dis
elimination between Washington and Baltimore, ant
held that both cities must be treated alike. So BOTt
CITIES lost the advantage to which their Locations
and circumstances rightfully entitled them, and tn,
railroads got just what they wanted; namely, tn,
privilege of raising their rates to both cities.
The law is so plain that there can be no mistak
ing Ii SAYS that whenever carrier by rail SHALL il
competition with a water route that it doe
not say by reason of competition of water route,
or in order to meet the competition of waite
route" but merely "in" competition with water route
whenever a carrier by rail shall, in competition
with water route, reduce rates it shall no
be permitted to increase such rates unless after hear
ing by the Commission it shall be found that sucl
proposed increase rests upon changed conditions othe
than the elimination of water competition"
1t is not necessary to prove that the rates wer
first reduced IN ORDER TO MEET water compe
tton; merely that they were reduced, and that waite
competition existed
The Washington Baltimore case should be takeI
back to the Commission and tried on its big, broat
merits. This is affair for a controversy between
Washington and Baltimore. 1t is case for co-opera
tion The two towns have a great common concerr
to protect their natural rights and advantages ad
vantages that involve their future as gateway point
between North and South, and that in the case o
other cities have repeatedly been recognized as en-
titled to recognition and protection.
1t is vitality important that this whole matter b,
reopened before the Interstate Commission and trie
in the right way, by somebody with vision wid
toLs ;, uyhoia al