Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1922-05-04


wrong for the authorities of a state
to require a railroad to do so. That
is precisely what happens when state
authorities require traffic wholly
within that state to be carried on
preferential terms as compared with
interstate traffic, or with the internal
traffic of adjacent states. The trans
| portation act does not impair the
power of the states to regulate their
| internal rates, except when the rates
established by a state unjustiy dis
criminate against interstate or for
eign commerce, or unduly prejudice
persons or localities as to interstate
commerce. Power must be lodged
somewhere to correct such evils, and
the only appropriate place to lodge 1t
is with the Interstate Commerce
Commission, an authority represent
ing all the states having an interest
in the question.
at requires no stretch of magma
ton to picture the bedlam and chaos
that would result from the operation
of system allowing one state to
put restrictions upon the commerce
and trade of another state. Com
merce and trade are national ques-
tons and should not be subjected to
local limitations.
There is no valid reason why the
traffic in any particular state should
move on preferential terms and thus
escape its proper proportion of the
burden which other users of transpor-
tation must bear; yet if each state
is to be supreme, if its mandates are
not subject to review, it would be
easy to create such preference and
favoritism. The natural and neces-
sary result would be rivalry to see
which could go furthest and the
whole transportation system would
break down because of inadequate
revenues, an end vastly detrimental
to the interest of the public as well
as to the carriers, since the prosper
ity of the country is indissolubly
bound up with the prosperity of the
railroads.
AS a practical question, a rail
way system trayersing a number of
states is necessarily operated as a
unit. All of its property is devoted
to state and interstate traffic. 1t
is, therefore, obvious that the sys-
TEN of rates under which it operates
must be harmonious and that there
should not be Inconsistencies at the
state borders.
"There is no Logical dcfan,e of
the proposition that a passenger
travelling from Savannah, Georgia, to
Columbus, Georgia, riding in the
same coach with a passenger from
Savannah, Georgia, to Phoenix City,
Alabama, "a station Immediately
west of the Chattahoochee river)
should be charged lower or a high
er rate per mile simply because he
does not cross the state boundary
line.
The great markets of the coun-
try are confined to a few of the
states. 1t is to the interest of the
people of all the state to be able to
reach markets like New York and
Chicago on equitable terms. The
citizens residing in the states of New
York and Illinois should have no spe-
clal advantages and privileges over
the citizens of Georgia and Alabama
IN the terms upon which they may
use the facilities of TRANSPORTATION
to reach these markets. All markets
should be accessible to people of all
the states on equitable terms. If
state commissions continue to de-
crease state rates a corresponding in
crease in interstate rates will follow,
II the level of railway return is pre-
served. Interstate commerce consti-
tutes about IS per cent, state com
merce only about Is per cent of all
traffic. The consuming public, which
pays the bill, therefore, has a much
larger interest in interstate rates and
is disadvantaged when these rates
bear more than their fair share of
the burden.
This is not to say that the state
commissions are shorn of their pow
ers, over service matters, station
facilities, and the like; nor to argue
that this should come to pass. They
still have many important functions
to perform under the well accepted
theory that transportation service is