Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-06-23
THE RAILROADS AND THE CANAL.

following
written by a prominent western railroad man.
will furnish the reader plenty of food for thought
on a very complex subject. We would gladly give
snace to our readers views the questions 1t
raises. Here it is:
I'm an editorial in the Journal of the 9th
and under head, Protection at Home, you
comment on remarks made by DR.. shortle be-
fore the Rotary Club.
at presume nearly everyone has formed
an opinion as to what attitude our govern
ment should take towards the Panama Canab
and also have views as to what benefit the
Panama canal will be to the people OF the
United States
'orhe doctor called attention to the fact that
the inland regions contributed their full share
to the construction of the canal; of course
he included the railroads who, by the way
are very heavy tax payers
81 would like your views as to whether
a toll should be charged on tonnage passing
through the canal sufficient to pay up-keep
and interest the investment. Also your
views as to whether 1t would be fair II the
government would build say a railroad that
would parallel the Santa Fe from Chicago to
California and with the peoples money to
carry freight and passengers practically free
and let the taxpayers bear the burden, and
naturally making the private owned railroads
valueless Some people think that freight and
messengers should be handled at very NOM
inal rate then the deficit made up by taxing
all of the people. Others feel the shipper or
traveller should bear the entire burden In
other words, the person who does not travel
or who is not a shipper should not be called
on to contribute part OF the expense Oh
maintaining railroads"
The purposes in building the canal were many
in number Among these the question OF
course, Of having it as a war advantage Inc
canal practically doubled the efficiency of our
navy by making it possible to shift our boats
from one ocean to the other without loss of time
In so far as the canal is a part of our military
establishment, that portion of its maintenance can
we'll be a charge against the entire nation Wheth-
err or not any portion of that expense should be
borne by the shipper is a question of expediency
to be decided as a national policy. There are no
grounds of natural justice for imposing an eX'
traordinary military burden upon commercial bust
nesses. If, however. the government sees lit 10
impose 1t there is reason why 1t has not a
right to do so. 1t certainly name the condt-
tions under which it will sell the use OF Ihe
canal for commerce.
The whole country contributed toward the
building of the canal This included the railroads
of course The comment of our correspondent tha'
the railroads are heavy taxpayers. thereby indi-
eating that they contributed heavily to the build
ing of the canal. is not true to fact In all prop
ability. The railroads are heavy payers of in
S''-~~
upon in any extraordinary way to contribute tc
our national taxes. They pay no income tax and
buy very lightly of those commodities which pay
an import duty. However, that does not detrac'
from their right to be treated fairly.
The journal certainly would disapprove of the
government building a parallel line OF railroad
thereby destroying the value Of privately owned
line, That would be virtual even If legal, confis
cation. Nor do we approve Of such an arbitrary
for would
fiscatory competitor of the railroads.
However, the ishmus has always been there
and 1t was the dream of builders to dig cana
across it. long before there trans -continenta
railroad. 1t within the reasonable scope OF or
binary foresight to know that some day there
would be water competition. Those who bull
railroads, did so knowingly. Those who have since
bought stocks in these railroads, did witt
knowledge of the fact that water competition wal
certain.
Since water transportation is naturally cheap
er on many commodities than rail rates. thu
railroads hardly hope for protective rate
through the canal which will so equalize rate
as to shield the railroads There is great differ
ence between natural advantage and an artt
flcial one, created by too favorable legislation
The government could not protect the freighter b!
prairie schooner against the economy In trans
portation furnished by the railroad, nor the stag
coach driven against the automobile. The railroad
are bound to suffer from such natural causes
due to the progress made through the skill o
man. ....
There is for much discussion as t
whether the passenger and the shipper shout
bear the whole cost of operation of the railroad!
Upon that subject the Journal has no policy whic
1t advocates But as academic subject, likel
in the near future to become an economic an
political one, the question is interesting.
Interior America would never have develope
without the railroad. Without 1t property value
would have been only fraction Of what they ar
Taken away. property values would almost di
appear. 1t is therefore an open question
whether not, matter of natural justice. I'll
owners of this unearned increment ought not
bear part of the burden of continued operation
There is also room for discussion OF wheth'
or not railroads are not such an importal
part of our military establishment, that they shou
be subsidized by the government in order to ket
them intact
A contribution of the thought Of others upt
these subjects would interest our readers.