New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-11-18

ton of the New York, New Haven &
Hartford Railroad in this query;
"No man can serve two masters. Is
there public advantage in compelling
corporation to serve three or
more?"
This is a question which indeed
strikes at the very heart of the rail
road problem in this country to-day,
and upon its answer hangs the issue
Of private ownership or government
ownership of the railroads. In the
failure of Congress to exercise more
completely its power to regulate com
merce the states have encroached
upon its prerogatives, and are to-day
actually regulating interstate COM
merce by indirect methods all over
the country. Like most other abuses
of power, this has been a growth,
until to-day the breaking point APP
proaches.
Americas first general railroad
legislation was enacted by Michigan
in 1913. Illinois passed a railroad
law the following year, and five
years later, in 1854, Ohio followed
suit. These were the beginnings of
the present system of railroad regu-
lation in this country, and nothing
could be more antipodal than the
public ideals prevalent then and now.
Restraint was not remotely consid-
cred in the early days. Railroad con-
struction was encouraged in every
possible way. The railroads were
given the widest latitude for their
performance, and the substance, and,
indeed, purpose, Of many of these
early statutes was specific dis
claimer of state connection with rail-
roads involving responsibility. To
make this emphatic some states re-
vised their constitutions.
This policy was fortunate for the
railroads. While it shows clearly
that the states either misunderstood
or ignored the material development
and internal improvement which the
advent of the carriers foreshadowed,
it gave to individual initiative the
freedom it required and to the nation
the leeway necessary for the founda-
ton of the worlds greatest trans
portation system.
Unco0rdinated
Regulation
To-day that situation has changed.
Early legislative liberality has van
ished, yielding place to a most con-
fusing, multifarious, unscientific and
vexatious system of railroad laws
and regulations. Probably at no time
the world over has human enterprise
of any character been subjected to
similar system of penalties and re-
strictions.
One Federal commission and forty
six state commissions exercise
sweeping authority over our rail-
roads. Congress and forty-eight
state legislatures from time to time
pass new restrictive measures and
increase, respectively, the powers Of
the Federal and state commissions.
AS the latter act independently and
entirely without cooperation, confu-
sion and uncertainty follow. Ac-
cordingly, our general railroad policy
lacks uniformity, proportion, GER
tainty and efficiency. The closer it
is examined the more one is con-
WINGED of the truth Of the old adage
TOO many cooks spoil the broth"
Yet there is no more reason for the
states TO interfere in the regulation
of an interstate function like trans
portation than in the operation of
the postoffice or the conduct Of the
war.
Trade is not limited to-day to cir
cumscribed areas. Practically every
article Of commerce finds the COM
peting product Of another region in
any place Of sale. This competition
Of product with product is the COM
petition Of commerce itself, and it is