The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-08-09
BEGGING TIE oUEsTIoN.

Il
Opposing agitation for general re-
auctions in rates at present, the Rail-
way Age calls attention to the facts,
first, that the costs of the things the
railways have to buy are still relative
ly much higher than the freight and
passenger rates they receive, and Sec
ondly, that for six years average
wholesale prices of commodities were
much higher than railway rates, while
for only six months have railway
rates been relatively higher than the
average wholesale prices.
The Age seems to lose the whole
point of the contention, which is that
the rates are higher than the public
can pay and it refuses to pay them
whenever and wherever it can avoid
doing so. On the theory advanced by
the Age rates should go still higher
but how would an advance benefit the
railroad if they have no business?
None of the arguments setting
forth why rates should be reduced"
says the Age, makes any reference to
the fact that while rates are now high
compared with the general level of
prices. railway rates for some years
did not increase while the general
level of prices was advancing, and
that producers and shippers profited
meantime by. the fact that prices were
advancing while railway rates were
not"
This argument looks like trying to
l., i
bridge. 1t is necessary for the good
of both the railroads and the public
to deal with conditions as they exist
today and not as they have existed in
the past. The railroads want bust
ness and the public wants progress in
our industries. Neither can be OBJ
tanned under existing rates.
During the entire six years from
1915 to 1920, inclusive, the Age points
out. average wholesale prices We're
from 1 to 14S per cent higher than in
1918, while railway rates during this
time were never more than As per
cent higher than in 1913. and yet now,
when for less than six months railway
rates have been relatively higher as
compared with 1913 than wholesale
prices, we have loud and general de-
mand for reductions in rates on the
ground that producers and shippers
cannot stand" the present rates. -
But it is not the fault of the pa.
irons Of the railways that rates were
not advanced as soon as they should
have been. That was a matter that
was in the hands of the interstate
commerce commission and the fed
eral railroad administration. The
public should not now be required to
pay for the shortcomings of the gov
eminent, altho it is doing so in the
form of high rates of taxes. The Age
continues:
When between 1913 and 1917, rail-
way rates were standing still and av-
erage wholesale prices were advance
ing 10 per cent. spSkesmen for the
railways constantly were saying that
with wages and prices of all kinds ad-
vancing the railways could not stand
the then existing rates and were en-
titled to advances in them, both be-
cause the cost of railway operation
was rapidly increasing and because
the increasing prices of commodities
would enable the traffic to stand
n16heF rates. DuI, the rates were HOC
advanced.
Upon what principle of consistency,
equity or sound business can those
who opposed advances in rates when
their own prices were advancing, and
the traffic could stand them, now de-
mand reduction in rates because
prices recently have declined and they
need" reductions in rates which the
railways cannot stand? They profited
for six years by keeping railway rates
down while their own prices were ad-
vancing. Is it any more than fair that
railway rates should in turn remain
for a while relatively higher than
prices, when the wages and prices the
railways themselves have to pay are
still relatively so much higher than
the railway rates? Undoubtedly the
rates should be reduced-but not I'M
til operating expenses have been re-
duced and the railways can make a
reasonable return on lower rates.
Again the Age is repinded that It
is not question of fairness but a
question of business. The progress of
the country is being held up because
the roads are charging more than the
traffic will bear.
-