Arizona republican., 1914-02-05


 me how many changes were made in freight schedules, passenger schedules and express schedules, for 10 days. The period covered was the 10 days from October P, 1912. No attempt was made to magnify the number of changes. Where the change was to a group, although the number of changes would be very great, the change was simply count ed as a single change. For example, if the rate was changed from Chi cago to Texas common points, that would be one. If a rate was changed in transcontinental tariffs, while a very many points would be affected, the change was only counted as one. A change in classification would af- feet an infinity of rates almost, but it was only counted as one change. Now, then, reckoning changes in that way, in this period of 10 days in freight schedules-I am quoting from memory and it may not be ab- solutely exact. but it is substantially right-there were 15,000 advances and 29,000 reductions. In the pas senger tariffs there were 6O,O00 ad- vances and about S6,OOO reductions In express tariffs there were 4,000 advances and 32,00O reductions.
 l Now. then, computing the num- Der of changes in passenger tariffs, it was manifestly necessary to do what we did not do with freight tar iffs-we had to consider every par ticular point and treat every change to any point as one. The carriers at that time were engaged in revising their passenger schedules, so as to conform to the fourth section, which accounts for a great many of these changes. The express companies were getting ready to bring them- selves into line with our express or l order. So l think that We might fairly disregard passenger and eX- press tariffs. but there was nothing abnormal about the freight tariffs, and you may accept it as a fact that from one years end to the other there are every 10 days approX- mately 15,000 advances and 29,000 re- auctions in freight schedules.
 I have always known that there were a good many, but that rather took away my breath, and so 1 se- lected three railroad systems, one in each part of the country, whose | traffic managers I happened to know wrote each one a letter in Whicf stated the result, and told hin how many of these changes haC originated on his system and asked him two questions. The first ques- tion was: Tn your opinion, are these changes, either advances or reduc- tlonS, of general benefit to the ship ping public or to the railroads" 2" The second question was: In your opin- ion, has the time come when nC tariff change should be permitted either up or down, without the con. sent of the federal commission?"
 Now, all these gentlemen answered the first question by saying that, il their opinion, the changes in ques ton had not beer of material bene fit either to the shippers or to tn, railroad. One of them said that, il his opinion, the time had come whel no change should be permitted il either direction without the consen of the commission. On that question the other two were non- -committa
 The suggestion which I want t
 make for your consideration is thi and it was embodied in my frs question to these traffic representa-
 tlves: Hasn't the time come whe1 no tariff change should be permitte
 without the consent of the commis sion first obtained? Or. to put it il another way, has not the time com when the interstate commerce com
 mission should be given the sam
 authority in the making of rate which is given to many, and per
 haps most. state commissions?
 l am not going to enter into an , argument of this question. I jus . want to suggest to you one or tw reasons, which in my own mind in
 cline to an affirmative answer t
 that question.
 This railroad problem of ours manifestly a thing of developmen
 When the United States, a third C
 a century ago, became conscious C : the fact that it's railroads must b
 regulated, it was absolutely withou
 any precedent for that regulation There were countries which owne
 and operated their railroads. Ther
 was no country where the railroad were financed by private capital an
 regulated officially by public au thority.
 l Necessarily, this problem has bee
 one of gradual development, an what seems to be perfectly evider | today may be just as evident th
 other way tomorrow. There coul
 not be any better evidence of tha [ than the fact that a dozen years az
 l myself wrote an article on tn
 same subject in which l arrived ; = exactly the contrary conclusion thf :, have now. Now, at that time an in that article l gave three reason tor my conclusion, and perhaps , cannot do any better than state 7 you what those reasons were.
 [ The first reason was this: Tn;
 the carriers should be given u
 power to initiate their own rates 3 order that we might have an elast q | system of rates. 1 became con missioner, and first had to do vii these questions, 17 years ago :
 that time the phrase elasticity
 rates" was very much in the moutl l of all people who discussed this sul n ject. Railroad men talked about u
 elasticity of rates. and shippe
 talked about the elasticity of rate
 and economists did. The economis
 rather agreed that we ought to ha
 elasticity of rates, and I thought S