New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1919-01-02
Continued from page

>oHtiiutu 'rob HhS'
eliminate competition IN service and
facilities that exists between The trunk
Pennsylvania lines, for example the
great Middle West systems, the prin-
cipal lines through the South and the
trans continental systems.
Where they run to extremes as in
duplicating passenger train service, for
instance, a government hand may and
should be laid upon them. But this
item of waste has been exaggerated.
OF course. am rot advocating unrce-
ulated competition, but instead an en-
large regulation.
No Great Saving in Expense
"Much is said OF tee waste Of rail
road competitions Nearly everything
thus characterized is for the benefit
Of the public.
"Tho1efore is it waste? Undoubtedly
there is some actual waste. The uni
hcation Of lines so rs to send traffic
along the lines Of least resistance, the
shifting Of traffic according to the con-
ditions for the time being on different
lines, the shifting of engines from enc
line TO another to serve the exigcnclcs
of the moment, and tho consolidation
Of certain station facilities, etc. un-
expense and the FREQ movement of
freight traffic during exceptional
periods of extraordinary business. But
the amount of expense thus saved is
not relatively a great item, and the
diversion of traffic from line having
more than it can handle to line hay
ing less in times Of congestion could
be easily provided for through the
creation Of a 1loDer governmental Off
Ger and agency.
"Thc unitication of certain terminals
would also result in some saving. but
the government ought to take in hand
this matter OF terminals in the larger
cities, whether competition or united
control be adopted. 1t has grown en-
tlrely beyond municipal control and is
national in Importance in many places
Some saving also could be effected
by the abolition of competitive traffic
soliciting agencies, but the public
would suffer great Inconvenience
thereby.
Competition Enforccs Economies
"Moreover | have no doubt That the
rigid economies enforced by keen su-
pelvis!on of details under private man
agemcnt as against the lax habits
inherent IN public management and the
greater freedom and extravaganza in
methods Of spending Government
money would much more than Offset
every year any possible saving from
the elimination OF expenses incident TO
competition. Competition compels and
cnrorces economies requires attention
to details for saving, obtainablc in no
other way.
while the Government may save cX-
pense in conducting certain kinds of
business through its freedom in choos
ing methods and its non accommodates.
l never heard any one claim that a
government could conduct a business
IN the same way IS Il private CORPORA
ton at the same expense. Cost in
every department would mount and the
savings would soon vanish.
but granting very largc saving from
the suppression OF competition in
service and facilities, what is the rela
tive value and Importance Of it? Does
1T not mostly represent convenience TO
the public, which railroad owners
cheerfully furnish? And is the SAVING
OF expense the most important Object
to be obtained
Where would that lcaN civilization
are we not as nation quite as much
or even moro interested in developinr
conv"nicnccs and service OF our trons7
portatlon facilities than we are in
merely holding down Transportation
rates to the lowest possible level
Is TINS not moro important as public
policy than few cents pcr hundred
more OF less in the freight rates,
Calls Competition Better Policy
AS for the greater efficiency result
ing from unified control, there again
arises the question of the relative i'm
rortance Of such efficiency as.mav TINS
Dc obtalnablc against the convenience
resulting from competition. Germany
probably had the most efficient govern
meht IN TIE world, but there are other
Things more desirable even than off,
ticiency, and this is true in transporta-
ton.
If we carefully analyze the relative
merits of efficiency from uniiication
and tho advantages from competition
~ service and facilities. believe we
w.ll find that the latter will be very
much ...., better as national policy.
ines9 are ony some Of the reasons,
hastily stated, why favor the prcser-
yyation OF competition in service and
oelleve III thorough regulation by the
national government of all such COM
petition, with power to check it where
It amounts to m evil. 1t should permit
consultations subject to government
approval where the public benefit
would plainly be promoted. particular
y the absorption ii financially weak
lines of minor importance where Nv SC
cong the communities DEPENDENT
thereon could be better served But
| would steadily preserve connection
between thc large systems aud pursue
a policy Of widening the Competitive
area between suchflarre systems wher-
ever practicable.
1T follows that | am for these rea-
sons, II for no other. opposed to it also
because the opportunity which govern