Bisbee daily review., 1914-05-06
MR. nRANpEls,e AReuMENre.

MIR. sRAN0EIs's AReUMENTs.
 The railway having put into the record a statement
 hat their taxes had increased per in ten years Mr. Brandeis's remark hereupon that other taxes increased also and that the ratio of railroad taxes to gross revenues is still sma Mr Brandeis offered no comparison of the rates of taxes for the rail ways and other property, he proposes novel test ,f the reasonabeness faxes. He says the tax rate small in the railways business. That puts railways where the railway advocates claimed hat they were-in class by themselves regarding taxa don There has been nothing like this argument since Postmaster General Hitchcock calculated railway profits upon small pay on the cost of carrage of the malls, the usual basis of calculation being upon investment As the freight revenues of the petitonng railways az Jgregaed billion dollars in 1913 the rate of taxation on that scale necessarily was small It not as small 1t ought to be- according the facts fthe railways which were practically admitted by not being contested
 Mr. Brandes proceeded to argue that Che railways in heir progress toward starvation had turned the corner because their supply prices lower" The companies being unable to buy through the cness of their hnan- their supply of being excessive through the uness of trade natural that the prices of sup
 es of cars and other equipment should decline with other prices Other enterprises roaperity for heir profit SIr. Braudes argues that railways should look to decreasing costs as source of increasing mar in above expenses The railways argument is that hey should be allowed to their rates so that hey might be buyers and the prices of seller might 5e sustained or improved. The equipment makers will hardly be charmed by the argument that their diversity
 is suitable source O fthe railway property. When business slows in other departments prices are cut to t1prn ia r1or moving about so that more can be asked without em- barrassng buyers That was the course the railways wanted to take when they asked higher rates fous years ago. It is due to refusal of the Interstate Com nerce Commission that the railways are asking
 raise rates because business is unprodtabe That is
 fundamental fault of the regulation of prices by law They are not responsive trade movement in either
 rection not being allowed to rise with other prices md being reduced whenever feasible politically economic considerations being ignored.
 Mir Brandeiss other arguments that rates should not be increased for weak roads because it would unduy increase tue profits of the strong roads and that the railways should economize rather than raise their rates Nothing that the railways propose Is fav pred What railway has Mr. Brandeis managed profit ably that he is heard with such respect the subject Why does he appear in the case officially? When tho shippers dropped their opposition to the increase O rates they naturally left their counsel unemployed an' ho was engaged by tho Interstate Commerce Commis sioners What need for special counsel have the Judge in the case2 If they need such advice why is it no sought in less partial quarters: Why are the railway put into the position of denfendants when they arr merely petitioners for what other businesses possess a right? All prices having risen except railway rate are unreasonable in their relations What th railways receive buys less of what they must have [ Eeep them running They are paid less for working aarl er an dte socal counso of the Commission is lisiene to when he argues t is sl right The country need lenicient railways more than it needs lower rates