The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-05-06

and influence, that we proceeded.
 upon the request of the. New Eng land Railroad committee to do so. to prepare and submit plan for the
 solution of New England's railroad problem. In the preparation of this
 plan we tried to visualize New Eng
 land as it is; the nature, character
 and extent of its industry, it's com merce and its agricu1ture: the adapt
 ability of existing railroads to rem der the maximum of efficient service
 to all of these interests and to your cities, ports and towns. It was after consideration of all these elements that we prepared and submitted what We believed to be and what we still believe to be, the best plan for the Fallocation, of New England railroads without dismembering ex- isting systems. It is plan which,
 if adopted and carried out, is we'll
 adapted to bring New England into closer touch with. other sections of the country where 1t must secure it's raw materials and find market for its. finished products, and is equally we'll adopted to stimulate and in- crease business throughout this re- ] zion.
 Before going into the details or that plan. we desire to call your at- l tention to certain considerations arising out of other proposals which have been made flor the disposition
 oe your railroads.
 The first of these proposals is the l consolidation or unif1cation of New England railroads into one system
 May we say. without offense. that any plan which proposes the con- solidation or unification of all or sub
 stantially all of the railroads of New
 England into one system, Is III ad-
 vised from any viewpoint. New Eng land consists of six sovereign states. It has seven per cent of our total Epopulation. and eight per cent of our
 national wealth. It has thirteen per cent of all the factories and manu- factures, ten per cent of all the commodities made in the United
 States. An all New England system
 means the total elimination of all competition between and among your railroads.
 Railroads can neither be con-
 structed. extended, unified. nor con solidated, without the approval and order of the Interstate Commerce commission. Congress has. ordered
 that in the unification or consolida.
 ton of railroads Competition shall ! DC pESSCINCU tio LuAAy e<c PS"AuA~'
 the face of this requirement. who would have the moral courage to stand up before the Interstate Com merce commission in advocacy of
 proposition which destroys all com petition in railroad transportation throughout these six states. The obvious and conclusive answer 10
 such a plan, or to anything ap- preaching such a plan. is that con gress has required the Interstate Commerce commission to see 10 II
 that competition shall be preserved
 as fully as possible" and In imDos- l ing this requirement. the law does not and will not permit the destruc' ton of all competition within a ter ritory comprising six states.
 Another plan which seems to meet with considerable favor is the pro- posed consolidation of the New Ha- ven and the Boston and Maine. In this plan there is included all of the objectionable features inherent in the all New England plan, but differ | ing from them in extent or degree.
 These two systems serve territory where ninety-four per cent ot the total of New England's manufactur-
 ing business is transacted and s2 per cent of its factories are located.
 They operate flfty-five per cent of the total railroad tonnage of New England, not including the Boston and Albany. With the exception of the New York Central. such con
 solidated system would hold the only
 gateways to the west and south. To visualize the consolidation of these two systems as "preserving comDe- tition as fully as possible" is to de- ceive ourselves, but to visualize such consolidation as destroying compe- tition involves no stretch of the inn agination. The Interstate Commerce. commis- sion has included New England in one rate-making territory, stretching approximately from the Mississippi river to the most northeasterlv point of Maine. and from the Great Lakes to and beyond the Ohio and Poto- | mac. This it has done in spite Of the fact that 1t costs more to carry | a given.unit of railroad tonnage over a given distance on New England | railroads than 1t does to carry the | same unit for the same distance. over the railroads of other portions of the same territory. This extra | ordinary cost of railroad operation | in New England is large enough to warrant the most serious considera- | ton. The Interstate Commerce com | mission has recognized this condition l in several cases involving the ad-
 justment of rates. Your own rail- roads have filed briefs in these rate making cases. in which thev hay"
 asserted. proved and urged the e~-
 istence Of the cost 0f operating ra'l-
 roads.in New England as against th" l cost of operating railroads in truni | line and central territory.
 The Interstate Commerce com mission. in recognition of this con
 dition. has allowed higher freight | rates within New England ard, nr
 increased percentage of the division
 of freight rates to meet this "dis- ability ratio."
 We shall not here discuss th" question of who and what interests
 bear the burden of this disability ratio. Tn the first instance. New
 England railroads bear it: but the shipper must pay rate which in-
 cludes enough to enable the rail-
 roads to meet the burden. Wheth- England business and industry beers
 this burden. or whether 1t is dis
 tributed over the business and in- dustrv throughout the region which the Interstate Commerce commission
 has called "offlciaI territory" is a question we suggest for your cnnsih- eration. If New England railroads were consolidated or unified with trunk line systems. then there cnr he no question but that the hurder of bearing the extra cost involved '" tba, operations of your railroad
 within New .England. es cnmpare" with the cost cf operating the rail.
 roads without New England. worl" he distributed over and he horne ny the husiness and industry throurh' out the entire territory served bv the consolidated systems. Nor can there he any question but that If Nev