New Britain herald., 1930-12-05

NE " bI declaration of policy with respect to the general railroad situation:
 "Disregarding the results Of the ! business depression of 1850. and 1 basing the statements entirely upon 1 the period ended with December 31. 1929, the following picture presents ! itself:
 Prom 1890 to 1900. growth of railway freight traffic stated m ! revenue tons moved one mile, in creased S5.S per cent,-from 1900 to l91b, SOL per Cent,-from 1910 to 1920, 62.2 per cent, while from i 1920 to 1929 it increased but S.S 1 per cent. In the ten year periods from 1890 to 1920, passengers | moved one mile increased 35.4 per cent, l01,6 per cent, 46.5 per cent respectively, while from 1920 10 1929 they decreased 542 per cent.
 Tn analyzing the cause leading 10 this extreme decline in railway traf- flC in the past nine years, 1t is found that in 1920 there were slightly over S.20o,000 passenger motor cars registered, and in 1929, about 23,1Q0,O0G. In 1920 there were about 100000 motor trucks registered while in 1929 there were over 3,300,00Q. In 1920 approxi- mately 10000 motor buses were op- erated, and in 1929 this had grown 10 92.5oQ.
 With respect 10 waterways 1921 about 13oo.o0o tons Of freight were handled through the Panama Canal and ,n 1929, over l0,0oo,0o0 tons, Over inland waterways, cX- cludlng the Great Lakes, there was handled in 1920 about S&.ooo.- oo0 tons, and in 1928 total of nearly 16Lo0o,oo0 tons.
 As l have previously mentioned, contributing factors to this decline in rall traffic are the pipe lines high-power electric lines and the newest development of the piping Of natural gas from wells 10 large ccnters. which will still further rc- duCe coal traffic.
 Why Railroads Protest
 "The publication Of this state mcnt Of policy a few days ago with reference to inland waterways was immediately followed by protests from those high in executive and legislative councils. These protests were apparently based upon the un- warranted supposiuon that the rail- roads were objectmE 10 the i'm provcment m Waternays. inland or marinc. This IS not so; the railroads recognised inc policy Of the govern ment from it's very beginning 10 ill., crease the transportation facilities over nayigable waters. The govern mout was given jurisdiction ovrr nayigablo waters jn the framing of has deepeucd rivers and harhors, established lighthouses and made safe the navigation Of such waters. What the railroads do object 10 is first, the prohibition ill the Panama Canal Act against their engaging In llt 4lE pol Ia LlO4l lt N d hi'O4i I4A- same terms as their competitors and secondly they cmphatlcally protest against the government en- gazing in such transportation and performing the same at d loss and . assessing the general taxpayers 10 make good the loss. The railroads protest against the government op- cratng barges in the Mississippi River and the Warrior Rjyc~ in the south. They object 10 being required to make joint rates and otherwise l compete with an operation in which the government is losing money be- cause Il is carrying below cost. , They say, and with good reason, | that if the government is not only going 0 furnish the highway frac . but also be their competitor in op- 1. erating on tho High ways, they may !. as well look forward to the time when the states shall subsidize mo- tor buses and motor trucks on their own highways. The competition 1. over the free highways whether they be by land or water is severe <. enough without having added to It !. the operation by the government st ] a loss
 Fair Competition Prevented
 Coming back 10 the policy roe- . commended by the railway cNec1- . tives; in 50 far as any form Of inc . foregoing mentioned service is 1o- i elImate. and natural economic . development, the railroads have 10 right 10 complain. Tho public is en- ] titled to the hest transportation at . the lowest reasonable cost. However, . where the rail carrier arg prevented . through legls'ariou or regulation . from fairly competing with now or . old forms Of transportation, or 1.