Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-11-02

over 1911, and that the expense OF hand
ling the increase will be no greater
relatively than the average during the
periods selected for comparison. The
difference between U) and the respond
ent's deductions in Table V is due to
the fact that the attorney generals
figures are admittedly estimates Of
volumes and unit prices while the re-
epondents start VITA fixed volumes
and estimate the effect OF changed
costs.
Whether the current year will show
an increase in volume of traffic over
1917 cannot now be told. Whether the
cost of handling the same volume o!
traffic will not be increased by fur
Their increases in wages, supplies. ma
terials and taxes is not now certain.
The probability of the formers hap
pening is strenuously urged by the
attorney general, and of the latter was
suggested by one of respondents wit
nesses. Both are somewhat conjectur-
al. We think that indications point
more strongly toward the latter than
the former.
1.-THE attorney general is making his
second calculation, wherein he ssti-
the year l9l7-l9l8 will be s15,cS0 5o5.y5
assumes that the year 19l7-ls1s will
show. not a normal increase over 1916
1917, which during the five years ending
June 80. 1916, has averaged $410, 6S0.97,
nor the abnormal increase Of 19lS-l9l7
over a normal year 1t adds an abnor-
NAL increase due to war conditions to
an abnormal base already created by
~, ~ 81
but we do not think that it is to be
expected 1t cannot be had without
a further increase in commodities to
be carried and equipment to carry
them IN excess Of what appears to be
in sight.
We might be justified under normal
conditions in assuming that the average
normal rate Of increase in volume of
traffic would continue. But we do not
think that we can safely apply expe
riences under normal conditions to a
situa ton like this The abnormal con-
ditions which created the situation and
opportunity equally as favorable for
utilizing them. must continue in order
to maintain even the present situation.
We think that the cost of operation is
more likely to increase than the vol
ume of traffic and that we shall do
the public at least no injustice if we
decline to enter the field of specula-
ton.
1T is not seriously suggested any
where in the case that if these in
creased costs Of operation do in fact
exist, and if there is not reasonable
ground to believe that they will be
offset by increased volume of traffic.
they 90 not justify an increase in
rates to meet misunderstanding that the
case is to be decided on the "emer-
eency" issue and without full val
uation.
1T has been Suggested by some
that the increases should be applied
to freight traffic entirely and the at
tornoy general argued that no just ap-
portlonment could be made without a
segregation of passenger and freight
operating costs
The increased cost OF operation is
due to passenger as we'll as to freight
traffic, and it is only fair that each
should bear its part Of the burden.
The general public know less of the
effect of freight charles. because they
do not appear under that name in the
bills they pay for commodities, But
they are there; or the merchant stands
them They enter into the cost of
every ton of coal, every barrel of -four,
every suit of clothes. every least COM
modify that the railroads bring to us,
And it is not just to compel those who
ride less to contribute unnecessarily to
the car fares of those who ride more.
even though they do so in disguise. So
far as possible each should pay direct
ly for what he gets.
There is much force in the conten-
ton that the costs Of the two classes
of traffic ought to be segregated, so
that VIC would know just what each
should bear. 1t would net avail much
to dc this unless the entire expense,
that liOrne before 1917 as well as
the present additional costs. was seq
recated: and this would involve eX-
pense which VIC do not now think JUS
tilted. To he thoroughly done. it would
require fuil physical valuation The
relative Importance of the two classes
CT operations as shown by the figures
contained in Table / indicate that the
passenger traffic may fairly bear one
third of the proposed increase. More
over, it has been quite generally held
by those who have studied the sub
jet that the passenger traffic. except
on railroads where it Is especially
dense. has paid less than it's proper
tioral cost.
Some pubfcists and economists con-
tend that the primary function Of a rail-
road is to transport freight that the pas
senger traffic is only incidental and that
the freight traffic should bear the bulk
OF the expense of both classes Of opera :
ton This theory is entertained by sGme
very eminent authorities, and has hal
careful consideration. We are not, how
ever. able to adopt it.
Its acceptance would put the cost Of
passenger traffic upon those who have
freight transported; not in proportion to
the amount they travel. but in proportion
to the amount they travel, but in proper
ton to their use Of the railroads facili-
ties for entirely distinct purposes. and
purposes for which they pay full cost
Public policy frequently requires that the
expense shall be borne in part by others
than those for whose direct benefit the
service is rendered The operation Of
branch lines through .undeveloped terri
tory Is a familiar example. But this
should not be the rule Society is best
regulated when each pays for what he