Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-11-01

single stroke of the legislative pen or
by ruling of the Interstate Commerce
Commission or State Railroad Commission,
we ought not to spend millions of dollars
to accomplish indirectly.
This theory of creating potential water
way competition in order to reduce railroad
rates rests upon the intolerable and transpar-
ent fallacy that the railroads of the United
States constitute an intrenched power and
are beyond the reach of our laws and Our
courts. Furthermore, have we the moral
right to tax the people of the whole country
for the money with which to dredge chan
mel in certain river, in order that the people
residing in that community may enjoy
cheaper railroad rates?
The question of waterway improvement
is independent, and should be considered
without regard to its incidental effects upon
other problems The criterion should be
whether (; given waterway improvement
will constitute a profitable investment OF
capital, judged by the standards that sue
cessful men and corporations apply to their
Investments; whether it will produce or in
crease watcr-borne traffic.
|nN the other hand, it has been con-
~ fidently alleged that the waterways
of the country must be protected from GER
tain types of railroad competition if they
are to remain rs factors in OUR tranSpOrta-
ton problem. In the earlier days the rail-
roads reSortcd to all manner of competitive
methods in order to paralyze boat lincs,-
by carrying freight between competing
points at less than cost, recouping the loss at
other points on the lines; by refusing to &C
cept freight from those who patronizcd boat
lines in any way; by purchasing the boat
lines themselves and discontnuing them;
J. 1,nt,x
competing points until the boats had been
driven from the rivers, whereupon the old
rates were restored.
There are many advocates of legislation
which would give the Interstate Commerce
Commission the power to prescribe MINIMUM
rates for railroads as a method of protecting
water carriers. BY an amendment to the
Interstate Commerce Act adopted in 1910
railroads competing with boat lines, after
once reducing their rates between such COM
peting points, are forbidden to raise them
again unless they can demonstrate that the
reduction was not for the purpose of destroy
ing competition.
The commission should be invested with
power to establish through routes and joint
maximum rates where the railroads refuse
to furnish such privileges voluntarily. 1t
should also have the power to compel phys
ical connection between railroad and boat
lines, wherever necessary for the formation
of through routes Without this power, the
cost and inconvenience of transferring freight
by truck from one terminal to the other will
offer a serious obstacle to the development
of exchange traffic.
1t is true that some progress has been
made along these lines by the provisions of
the Panama Canal Tolls Act of August "a.
1912; though the courts have not construed
these sections of that act, and opinions differ
regarding their efficiency to correct the evils
at which they were aimed.
1t is also desirable that the commission
should have power to compel railroads to
charge less than local rates to all lake, river,
and sea ports on through traffic to be ex-
changed with boat lines engaged in domestic
trade, unless prorating arrangements al
ready exist.
The most serious situation on our larger
waterways, such as the Great Lakes and
Long Island Sound, is that we have no bona
tide efficient competition between railroads
and boat lines, inasnuch as the boat lines
are owned and operated by the railway
companies This condition is also true of
the packet lines on many of Our rivers.
~ n r AL.