"5. That, with the amount of red tape th_The Railroad Question A historical and practical treatise on railroads, and remedies for their abuses

it will be impossible to secure the building of needed

lines. While such objection is inconsistent with the fourth,

it may have some force, but as the greater part of the

country is already provided with all the railways that will

be needed for a generation, it is not a very serious

objection even if it is as difficult as asserted to procure

the building of the new lines. It is not probable, however,

that the Government would refuse to build any line that

would clearly subserve public, convenience, the conduct of

the postal service negativing such a supposition....

"6. That lines built by the Government would cost much more

than if built by corporations. Possibly this would be true,

but they would be much better built and cost far less for

maintenance and betterments, and would represent no more

than actual cost; and such lines as the Kansas Midland,

costing but $10,200 per mile, would not, as now, be

capitalized at $53,024 per mile, nor would the president of

the Union Pacific (as does Sidney Dillon, in the _North

American Review_ for April) say that "a citizen, simply as

a citizen, commits an impertinence when he questions the

right of a corporation to capitalize its properties at any

sum whatever," as then there would be no Sidney Dillons who

would be presidents of corporations, pretending to own

railways built wholly from Government moneys and lands, and

who have never invested a dollar in the construction of a

property which they have now capitalized at the modest sum

of $106,000 per mile....

"7. That they are incapable of as progressive improvement as

are corporate-owned ones, and will not keep pace with the

progress of the nation in other respects; and in his _Forum_

article Mr. Acworth lays great stress upon this phase of the

question and argues that as a result the service would be

far less satisfactory.

"There may be force in this objection, but the evidence

points to an opposite conclusion. When the nation owns the

railways trains will run into union depots, the equipment

will become uniform and of the best character, and so

sufficient that the traffic in no part of the country would

have to wait while the worthless locomotives of some

bankrupt corporation were being patched up, nor would there

be the present difficulties in obtaining freight cars

growing out of the poverty of corporations which have been

plundered by the manipulators, and improvements would not be

hindered by the diverse ideas of the managers of various

lines in relation to the adoption of devices intended to

render life more secure or to add to the public

convenience.... Existing evidence all negatives Mr.

Acworth's postulate that "state railway systems are

incapable of vigorous life."

"8. An objection to national ownership which the writer has

not seen advanced is that States, counties, cities,

townships and school districts would lose some $27,000,000

of revenue derived from taxes upon railways. While this

would be a serious loss to some communities, there would be

compensating advantages for the public, as the cost of

transportation could be lessened in like measure.

"Many believe stringent laws, enforced by commissions

having judicial power, will serve the desired end, and the

writer was long hopeful of the efficacy of regulation by

State and National commissions; but close observation of

their endeavors and of the constant efforts--too often

successful--of the corporations to place their tools on such

commissions, and to evade all laws and regulations, have

convinced him that such control is and must continue to be

ineffective and that the only hope of just and impartial

treatment for railway users is to exercise the 'right of

eminent domain,' condemn the railways, and pay their owners

what it would cost to duplicate them; and in this connection

it may be well to state what valuations some of the

corporations place upon their properties.

"Some years since the Santa Fe filed in the counties on its

line a statement showing that at the then price of labor and

materials--rails were double the present price--their road

could be duplicated for $9,685 per mile, and, the materials

being much worn, the actual cash value of the road did not

exceed $7,725 per mile.

"In 1885 the superintendent of the St. Louis and Iron

Mountain Railway, before the Arkansas State Board of

Assessors, swore that he could duplicate such a railway for

$11,000 per mile, and yet Mr. Gould has managed to float its

securities, notwithstanding a capitalization of five times

that amount."

Among the advantages to be derived from Government ownership he names

the following:

"First would be the stability and practical uniformity of

rates, now impossible, as they are subject to change by

hundreds of officials, and are often made for the purpose of

enriching such officials....

"It would place the rate-making power in one body, with no

inducement to act otherwise than fairly and impartially, and

this would simplify the whole business and relegate an army

of traffic managers, general freight agents, soliciting

agents, brokers, scalpers and hordes of traffic association

officials to more useful callings, while relieving the

honest user of the railway of intolerable burdens.

"Under corporate control, railways and their officials have

taken possession of the majority of mines which furnish the

fuel so necessary to domestic and industrial life, and there

are few coal fields where they do not fix the price at which

so essential an article shall be sold, and the whole nation

is thus forced to pay undue tribute.

"Controlling rates and the distribution of cars, railway

officials have driven nearly all the mine owners, who have

not railways or railway officials for partners, to the wall.

"With the Government operating the railways, discriminations

would cease, as would individual and local oppression; and

we may be sure that an instant and absolute divorce would be

decreed between railways and their officials on one side,

and commercial enterprises of every name and kind on the

other.

"The failure to furnish equipment to do the business of the

tributary country promptly is one of the greater evils of

corporate administration, enabling officials to practice

most injurious and oppressive forms of discrimination, and

is one that neither Federal nor State commission pays much

attention to. With national ownership a sufficiency of cars

would be provided. On many roads the funds that should have

been devoted to furnishing the needed equipment, and which

the corporations contracted to provide when they accepted

their charters, have been divided as construction profits,

or, as in the case of the Santa Fe, Union Pacific, and many

others, diverted to the payment of unearned dividends, while

the public suffers from this failure to comply with charter

obligations.

"There would be such an adjustment of rates that traffic

would take the natural short route, and not, as under

corporate management, be sent around by the way of Robin

Hood's barn, when it might reach its destination by a route

but two-thirds as long, and thus save the unnecessary tax to

which the industries of the country are subjected. That

traffic can be sent by these roundabout routes at the same

or less rates than is charged by the shorter ones is _prima

facie_ evidence that rates are too high.

"There would be a great reduction in the number of men

employed in towns entered by more than one line. For

instance, take a town where there are three or more

railways, and we find three or more full-fledged staffs,

three or more expensive up-town freight and ticket offices,

three or more separate sets of all kinds of officials and

employes, and three or more separate depots and yards to be

maintained. Under Government control these staffs--except in

very large cities--would be reduced to one, and all trains

would run into one centrally located depot; freight and

passengers be transferred without present cost, annoyance

and friction, and public convenience and comfort subserved,

and added to in manner and degree almost inconceivable.

"The great number of expensive attorneys now employed, with

all the attendant corruption with the fountains of justice,

could be dispensed with, and there would be no corporations

to take from the bench the best legal minds, by offering

three or four times the Federal salary....

"Every citizen riding would pay fare, adding immensely to

the revenues. Few have any conception of the proportion who

travel free, and half a century's experience renders it

doubtful if the evil--so much greater than ever was the

franking privilege--can be eliminated otherwise than by

national ownership. From the experience of the writer, as an

auditor of railway accounts, and as an executive officer

issuing passes, he is able to say that fully ten per cent.

travel free, the result being that the great mass of railway

users are yearly mulcted some thirty millions of dollars for

the benefit of the favored minority; hence it is evident

that if all were required to pay for railway services as

they are for mail services, the rates might be reduced ten

per cent, or more, and the corporate revenues be no less,

and the operating expenses no more. In no other

country--unless it be under the same system in Canada--are

nine-tenths of the people taxed to pay the traveling

expenses of the other tenth. By what right do the

corporations tax the public that members of Congress,

legislators, judges and other court officials and their

families may ride free? Why is it that when a legislature

is in session passes are as plentiful as leaves in the

forest in autumn?...

"The corporations have ineffectually wrestled with the

commission evil, and any number of agreements have been

entered into to do away with it; but it is so thoroughly

entrenched, and so many officials have an interest in its

perpetuation, that they are utterly powerless in the

presence of a system which imposes great and needless

burdens upon their patrons, but which will die the day the

Government takes possession of the railways, as then there

will be no corporations ready to pay for the diversion of

traffic.

"As a rule, American railways pay the highest salaries in

the world for those engaged in directing business

operations, but such salaries are not paid because

transcendent talents are necessary to conduct the ordinary

operations of railway administration, but for the purpose of

checkmating the chicanery of corporate competitors. In other

words, these exceptionally high salaries are paid for the

purpose, and because their recipients are believed to have

the ability to hold up their end in unscrupulous corporate

warfare where, as one railway president expressed it, 'the

greatest liar comes out ahead....'

"Government control will enable railway users to dispense

with the services of such high-priced umpires as Mr. Aldace

F. Walker, as well as of all the other officials of

sixty-eight traffic associations, fruitlessly laboring to

prevent each of five hundred corporations from getting the

start of its fellows, and trying to prevent each of the five

hundred from absorbing an undue share of the traffic. It

appears that each of these costly peace-making attachments

has an average of seven corporations to watch....

"With National ownership the expenditures involved in the

maintenance of traffic associations would be saved and

railway users relieved of a tax that, judging from the

reports of a limited number of corporations of their

contribution towards the support of such organizations, must

annually amount to between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000.

"Of the six hundred corporations operating railways,

probably five hundred maintain costly general offices,

where president, secretary and treasurer pass the time

surrounded by an expensive staff. The majority of such

offices are off the lines of the respective corporations, in

the larger cities, where high rents are paid and great

expenses entailed, that proper attention may be given to

bolstering or depressing the price of the corporation's

shares, as the management may be long or short of the

market. So far as the utility of the railways is concerned,

as instruments of anything but speculation such offices and

officers might as well be located in the moon, and their

cost saved to the public....

"Railways spend enormous sums in advertising, the most of

which National ownership would save, as it would be no more

necessary to advertise the advantages of any particular line

than it is to advertise the advantages of any given mail

route.... A still greater expense is involved in the

maintenance of freight and passenger offices off the

respective lines, for the purpose of securing a portion of

competitive traffic. In this way vast sums are expended in

the payment of rents and the salaries of hordes of agents,

solicitors, clerks, etc., etc....

"Under Government control discriminations against localities

would cease, whereas now localities are discriminated

against because managers are interested in real estate

elsewhere, or are interested in diverting traffic in certain

directions....

"Another, and an incalculable benefit, which would result

from National ownership, would be the relief of State and

National legislation from the pressure and corrupting

practices of railway corporations, which constitute one of

the greatest dangers to which republican institutions can be

subjected. This alone renders the nationalization of the

railways most desirable, and at the same time would have the

effect of emancipating a large part of the press from a

galling thraldom to the corporations....

"Estimated net annual saving to the public which would

result from Government control:

From consolidation of depots and staffs $20,000,000

From exclusive use of shortest routes 25,000,000

In attorneys' fees and legal expenses 12,000,000

From the abrogation of the pass evil 30,000,000

From the abrogation of the commission evil 20,000,000

By dispensing with high-priced managers

and staffs 4,000,000

By disbanding traffic associations 4,000,000

By dispensing with presidents, etc 25,000,000

By abolishing all but local offices,

solicitors, etc. 15,000,000

Of five-sevenths of the advertising account 5,000,000

-----------

Total savings by reason of better administration $160,000,000

"It would appear that, after yearly setting aside

$50,000,000 as a sinking fund, there are the best reasons

for believing that the cost of the railway service would be

some $310,000,000 less than under corporate management.

"That $6,000,000,000 is much more than it would cost to

duplicate existing railways will not be questioned by the

disinterested familiar with late reductions in the cost of

construction, and that such a valuation is excessive is

manifest from the fact that it is much more than the market

value of all the railway bonds and shares in existence."

The above quotations from Mr. Davis' article hardly do it justice, and

it should be read in full to appreciate its full force. Many of the

predictions and estimates are undoubtedly in the main correct, yet upon

the whole it must be admitted that it is a rather rosy and too hopeful

view to take of Government ownership of our railroads.

_4. State ownership with private management._

This is a compromise between a public and a private system of railway

ownership and management. It is claimed by the advocates of this system

that if the Government would acquire by purchase or through condemnation

proceedings all of the railroads of the country, pay for them by issuing

its bonds, and then lease the various lines to the highest responsible

bidders, prescribing a schedule and rules of management, most of the

benefits resulting from state ownership of railroads could be secured

while nearly all its disadvantages would be avoided. It is proposed to

purchase railroads at their actual value and to issue in payment bonds

bearing the same rate of interest as other Government securities. This

would deprive managers of every opportunity to manipulate the railroad

business for purposes of stock speculation. It would also reduce the

fixed charges of our railroads at least 50 per cent., the benefits of

which reduction the public would chiefly share. The acquisition of the

railroads by the Government would, moreover, afford the conservative

capitalist a safe and permanent investment, which, with the gradual

disappearance of our war debt, might become a national desideratum.

It is proposed by the advocates of this system that the Government fix

rates of transportation for a certain period, to be reviewed at the end

of that period upon an agreed basis. The operating companies would be

required to keep their roads in repair and give sufficient bonds for the

faithful performance of their contracts. If found guilty of persistent

violations of the terms of their leases or of such laws as Congress

might enact for their control, their bonds and leases might be declared

forfeited. A new Government department or bureau would have to be

established and charged with the duty of exercising the same control

over railroads which the Government now exercises over national banks,

and in addition to this complete publicity of the service would have to

be relied upon to prevent the introduction of abuses.

There are at least two valid objections that can be urged against the

adoption of such a system. Responsible companies could not be induced to

lease a line for a valid consideration unless their rates were

definitely fixed for a series of years. Such a course might, however,

in time result in great hardship to the commerce of the country, as the

great and unavoidable difference in the rates of the various railroad

lines of the country would give to the commercial interests of some

sections decided advantages over those of others. Besides this it would

be very difficult to compel the different companies to keep the lines

leased by them in repair. Controversies would constantly arise between

the officers charged with the supervision of the roads and the operating

companies, which could be ultimately determined only by the courts,

causing to the Government loss, or at least delay in the adjustments.

_5. National control._

Mr. A. B. Stickney, in his work, "The Railway Problem," holds that in

the interest of uniformity it is desirable to transfer the entire

control of railroads to the National Government. He assigns two reasons

for the proposed change; one being that Congress would consider the

subject of railroad control with more intelligence and greater

deliberation; the other, that "the problem of regulating railway tolls

and of managing railways is essentially and practically indivisible by

the State lines or otherwise," and that the authority of Congress to

deal with interstate traffic carries with it the right to regulate the

traffic which is now assumed to be controlled by the several States.

It must be admitted that it is a difficult matter to draw the line of

demarcation between National and State control, and that Congressional

regulation of railways would remedy many evils which now affect our

transportation system; yet there is reason to believe that the proposed

change would in the end be productive of more evil than good. It is an

essentially American maxim that the home government only should be

trusted with the administration of home affairs. The people of each

State know best their local needs, and it is safe to say that for a

generation or two no serious effort will be made to amend the Federal

Constitution in this respect or to secure from the courts an

interpretation of the interstate commerce clause greatly differing from

that which now obtains.

It is thus seen that nearly all the methods of railroad management which

we have discussed are, at the present time at least, more or less

impracticable on account of the radical changes which they would

necessitate. It is not likely that for many years to come the American

people could be induced to try any extensive experiments in state

ownership of railroads; nor is it any more likely that the present

generation will undertake the difficult task of separating the ownership

of railroads from their operation.

A nation is, like the individual, inclined to follow beaten tracks. It

finds it, as a rule, easier to improve these tracks than to abandon them

and mark out a new course. Any proposition made for the improvement of

our system of railroad transportation is in the same proportion likely

to receive the approval of the masses in which it makes use of existing

conditions. It will, therefore, be my aim, in making suggestions as to a

more efficient control of this modern highway, to retain whatever good

features the present system possesses, and to only propose such changes

as may seem essential to restore to the railroad the character of a

highway.

As has been indicated above, any system of railway regulation, to be

applicable to our circumstances, must recognize the dual sovereignty of

Nation and State. The great majority of our railroad corporations were

originally created by the State, and are only responsible to the State

as long as they do not engage in interstate commerce. Even foreign

corporations must submit to all police regulations of the State in which

they may do business, and as long as the American Constitution remains

intact the individual States will, and should, assert their right to

regulate local traffic and to exercise police supervision over all

railroads crossing their boundaries.

All power should be kept as closely to the people as is consistent with

efficiency in the public service. It may even be questioned whether

entire transfer to the Federal Government of the supervisory powers now

exercised by the States in railroad affairs would tend to correct

existing railroad evils more speedily or more effectually than they can

be corrected through the agency of local rule. The conditions, and

therefore the wants, of the different States differ so greatly that

general legislation must always fail when it attempts to regulate

matters of merely local concern.

The means employed by the State for the regulation of the roads under

its jurisdiction should be such as are least likely to lead to a

conflict with Federal authority, and experience has shown that the

authority of the General Government and that of an individual State over

a railroad company, which is incorporated under the laws of the latter,

but is engaged in interstate commerce, may be so harmonized as to avoid

conflicts between the two sovereignties without any great sacrifice of

power on the part of either. Judge Cooley said recently in reference to

regulation by National and State commissions:

"There is no good reason in the nature of things why the

conformity should not be complete and perfect. It is

remarkable that up to this time there has been so little--I

will not say of conflict, but even of diversity of action

between the National and State commissions. Indeed, I recall

no instance at this time when anything done by the one has

seemed to me to afford just ground for complaint by the

other. This may justly be attributed to the fact that there

has been no purpose on the part of either to do any act that

could afford ground for just complaint on the part of

managers of the business regulated and no desire to do

anything else than to apply rules of right and equality for

the protection of the general public. The aim of all

regulation ought to be justice, and when it is apparent that

this is the purpose of the several commissions, the railroad

managers of the country may more reasonably be expected to

cooperate with them much more generally than they do now. If

these managers were to come generally and heartily into more

full and complete recognition of the rules of right and

justice that the law undertakes to lay down for the

performance of their duties in their management of the great

interests they represent, there cannot be the least doubt

that the general result would be, not only that their

service to the public would be more useful than it is now,

but that the revenues derived from their business would be

materially increased through the cutting off of many of the

drains upon them, which now, while affecting injuriously the

returns they can make to their stockholders, at the same

time have the effect of prejudicing the mind of the general

public against railroad management to an extent quite beyond

what is generally understood by those who suffer from it.

The prejudice is inevitable, and not at all unreasonable

when it is seen, as it very often is, that these drains

result from an unjust discrimination against the public or

some portion thereof, that they are of a character that

ought to need no law and no criminal or other penalties to

put them under the ban of condemnation in every office of

railroad management.

"I take the liberty of adding one more thought: that the

more perfect is railroad legislation, the less we shall hear

of transportation by rail being made a Government function,

the General Government making purchase of all the roads and

entering upon a course which will lead we know not where or

into what disasters."

There has been during the past twenty years a tendency in a majority of

the States to place the local control of railroads in the hands of

executive boards, usually styled "railroad commissioners." Previous to

this period the various States relied solely upon legislation for the

regulation of the transportation business, but in time they became

convinced that such laws were inoperative for the want of an enforcing

power. It was found that the individual shipper was unable to cope with

a powerful company and usually would rather suffer wrong than to enter

into a contest which nearly always resulted in great pecuniary loss to

him. On the other hand, it was apparent that if the claim of the

individual were pressed by a railroad commission, even though such a

body had but limited powers, it would, under ordinary circumstances, be

honored, provided it was meritorious; and if the commission was

compelled to enforce a demand through the courts, it would have the

support of the State to poise the wealth and power of the corporation.

The term "railroad commissioner" in the United States is nearly as old

as the railroad itself; but the first officials bearing that title were

merely successors to the turnpike commissioners of yore; their duties

consisted chiefly in supervising, passing or reporting upon the

construction and condition of the highway.

The first railroad commission, in the present acceptation of the term,

was created in the State of Massachusetts, in 1869. The commission

consisted of three persons, whose principal duty was to "make an annual

report to the General Court, including such statements, facts and

explanations as will disclose the actual working of the system of

railroad transportation in its bearing upon the business and prosperity

of the commonwealth, and such suggestions as to its general railroad

policy, or any part thereof, or the condition, affairs or conduct of any

railroad corporation, as may seem to it appropriate." This board also

had the general supervision of all railroads and power to examine the

same. It was required to give notice in writing to any railroad

corporation which, in its judgment, was guilty of any violation of the

railroad laws of the State; and if such company continued the violation,

after such notice, it became the duty of the commission to present the

facts to the Attorney-General. It was further made the duty of the board

to examine, from time to time, the books and accounts of all railroads,

to see that they were kept in a uniform manner, and upon the system

prescribed by the board. It was also required to investigate the cause

of any accident on a railroad resulting in loss of life. These being the

principal duties of the board, its powers were very limited; but its

personnel supplied the power which the law had withheld. The success of

this commission exceeded even the expectations of the advocates of the

system, who, in view of the limited powers of the commission, had

anticipated but meager results.

To quiet the Granger movement the railroads favored and finally secured

the adoption of the commissioner system in the West, and South, in which

sections it attained its highest development. It was soon found that a

commission after the Massachusetts model, when composed of men less

competent or less disposed to do their duty, was liable to dwindle into

a statistical board or even become a pliant tool in the hands of the

railroads. Furthermore, the conditions in Massachusetts, where railroad

owners and railroad patrons lived side by side and were in many

instances even identical, differed materially from those found in the

West and South, where railroad patrons were made to pay excessive rates,

to produce liberal dividends on fictitious stocks for non-resident

stockholders. Here a conflict between the railroads and such commissions

as were determined to do their duty became often unavoidable. Railroad

companies were as a rule disposed to disregard the recommendation of a

commission to reduce exorbitant rates. This led in those States which

suffered most from unjust tariffs to a popular demand to endow the

commission with the power to fix _prima facie_ rates. While the number

of States which have taken this step is at present still limited, public

opinion in its favor is growing throughout the nation, and a general

adoption of this policy is probably only a question of time. There is

every reason for believing that a commission vested with the right to

fix local rates, to require full and complete reports from railroad

companies, and to make proper regulations for their control, aided by

penal legislation to compel compliance with their orders, will be a

sufficient aid to the State in exercising such control over the

companies operating lines within its borders as its dignity and the

welfare of its people demand.

Viewing the question from a national point of view, we find that, owing

to the great and constantly increasing importance of interstate traffic,

improved Federal agencies for railroad control are a pressing need.

While much has been accomplished by the Interstate Commerce Act, much

yet remains to be done. Violations of the act are still far too

frequent, and they have been encouraged by unfriendly decisions by some

of the inferior Federal courts.

It must be admitted that nearly all the evils connected with interstate

transportation could soon be remedied were it not for the difficulties

which the Interstate Commerce Commission encounters in the enforcement

of the law. On the one hand it is not possible with the machinery at

present provided to detect and prove a considerable part of the

violations of which railroad managers are daily guilty; and on the other

hand, if these violations are brought to light, there would not,

according to the testimony of a prominent railroad man, be courts enough

in the country to try the violators. Besides this, such is the

artfulness of railroad managers that in a majority of cases it would be

impossible to reach the guilty party, and subordinates would have to

answer for the transgressions of their superiors.

To provide adequate machinery for the supervision of the transportation

business, a national bureau of commerce and transportation should be

established. As its chief a director-general of railroads should be

appointed by the President, on the recommendation of the Secretary of

the Interior, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This

officer should hold his office for a term of at least six years, unless

sooner removed by the President, upon reasons to be communicated by him

to the Senate. He should not be interested either directly or indirectly

in railroad securities. The Interstate Commerce Commission should be

continued as an advisory board. It should upon the whole retain its

present functions and should be consulted by the director-general in all

matters requiring expert investigation. A number of divisions or

sub-bureaus should be established, and each should be entrusted, under

the supervision of the director-general, with such duties as may be

deemed necessary to secure the greatest efficiency.

There should be a division charged with the duty of carefully examining

and compiling the detailed reports which the various companies should by

law be required to make to the bureau. An inspection service should also

be established, similar to that now maintained by the Treasury and

Post-office Departments. Its officers should be empowered to enter all

railroad offices and examine the companies' books, board trains and

employ other legal means to detect violations of the railroad law and

report them to the chief of the bureau.

Railroad companies might be permitted to make interstate rates, but all

schedules should be submitted to the bureau for approval or revision.

Legal provision should be made against every sort of speculation in

railroad stocks on the part of railroad officers, who should, in

addition, be prohibited from sharing in the profits of favorite rates,

as at present. All executive officers and directors of railroad

companies should, like officers of national banks, be required to

qualify by taking an oath of office, and should be held to strict

accountability for their official acts. Officers of railroad companies

should not be allowed to receive and use proxies at stockholders'

meetings.

The director-general should have the power, when he has proof that a

railroad manager is persistently violating the law, to remove him and to

appoint a receiver to take charge of the road until its owners can make

provision and furnish sufficient guarantee for a more responsible

management. Such a procedure would not be without analogy in the sphere

of Federal authority. The Comptroller of the Currency is authorized by

law to remove the derelict officials of a national bank and place its

business in charge of a receiver. The beneficial effect of this

provision is evinced in the extreme rareness of such a step. When

railroad managers are held responsible for their own official acts, as

well as for those of their subordinates, and when all railroad

transgressions are visited upon their source in such a manner as to be

remembered by the stings of disgrace and of a blighted career,

unfaithful railroad managers will be extremely rare.

The plan here outlined is of course capable of being greatly improved.

Experience only is a reliable guide as to the merits of the various

details of such a system of control. What is needed above all things is

a beginning, the establishment of the principle of complete control of

railroad transportation by the State and the Nation. When this step is

once taken, the friends of railroad reform may safely trust to time for

the solution of the subordinate questions of this important problem.

By thorough State and Federal supervision of the railroad business many

of the present abuses can be prevented. But the temptations of railroad

managers to violate the law will continue to exist as long as the

speculative element is permitted to remain in railroad securities. To

remove the fountain-head of the evil eventually, the way should

gradually be paved for a change in railroad organization and ownership

which would also greatly increase the responsibility and efficiency of

railroad management. In the beginning of the railroad era, nearly all,

and not unfrequently all the capital needed for the construction of a

new line was supposed to be furnished by the company's stockholders. But

as it often happened that the cost of construction considerably exceeded

the original estimate, the State authorized railroad companies to

mortgage their property for the purpose of raising the money necessary

to complete the road. In time this provision of the law was taken

advantage of by speculative stockholders to such an extent that roads

were often bonded for the full amount necessary to construct them, and

even for more, while the stock was issued simply as a bonus to the

promoters and the bondholders of the road. But as the bonds and shares

scarcely ever remain in the same hands, such a condition was eventually

brought about that roads were controlled by those who had little or

nothing invested in the enterprise, and their real owners were deprived

of all influence in their management, retaining only the right to

foreclose their mortgages when things came to the worst. It is evident

that men who have only a speculative interest in property cannot have

the same concern for its permanent value and prosperity as those who

hold it as a permanent investment. Many of the railroad abuses of the

past had their origin in the law permitting the bonding of railroad

property. Were it desirable to make a property for the sole use and

convenience of speculators and gamblers, a better scheme could hardly be

devised than the present system of our railroad organizations. Were

railroad companies organized like national banks, were each shareholder

required to pay the full amount of the face value of his shares, and

were mortgaging railroad property entirely prohibited, it is not likely

that the proportion of bankrupted railroads would be any larger than

that of bankrupted banks. Few, if any, railroads would be built for

purely speculative or blackmailing purposes.

Capital is naturally conservative, and speculation is only invited where

the chances of gain are greatly out of proportion to the capital

invested. Were the principle of ownership which applies to national

banks and other well regulated corporations also applied to the

railroads, and were bonds entirely abolished, only such persons would

by the shareholders be placed in charge of their property as could give

to them the best assurance of honest and conservative management. Such a

change would greatly increase public confidence in, and the value of,

railroad securities, and would eventually place them above bank stock as

desirable investments. With the great fluctuations which under present

circumstances obtain in railroad stocks, these securities are regarded

as unsafe and unsatisfactory investments by conservative people. During

a period of less than twelve months in 1891 and 1892 the stock of the

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe fluctuated from 28-1/2 to 43-1/2, or 53

per cent.; that of the Chesapeake and Ohio from 15-1/4 to 25-7/8, or 70

per cent.; of the Chicago and Northwestern from 101 to 118, or 17 per

cent.; of the Chicago, Saint Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha from 20-1/2 to

38-1/2, or 88 per cent.; of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul from

48-3/4 to 78-1/2, or 61 per cent.; of the Iowa Central from 6-1/2 to 13,

or 100 per cent.

If we look over the stock quotations of the past ten or twelve years we

find still greater fluctuations. The following table, taken from the

_United States Investor_, shows the range of prices of a few of the

principal stocks during this period:

Name. Lowest. Highest.

Central Pacific 26-1/2 (1888) 102-7/8 (1881)

Chesapeake and Ohio 1 (1888) 33-7/8 (1881)

Erie 9-1/4 (1885) 52-7/8 (1881)

Illinois Central 79-1/4 (1879) 150-1/2 (1882)

Lake Erie and Western 1-3/8 (1885) 65-3/4 (1881)

Michigan Central 46-1/2 (1885) 130-1/8 (1880)

New Jersey Central 31 (1885) 131 (1889)

New York Central 81-3/4 (1885) 155-3/8 (1880)

Northern Pacific 14 (1884) 54-3/8 (1882)

Rock Island 63-3/8 (1891) 204 (1880)

C., M. & St. P. 34-3/8 (1879) 129-1/4 (1881)

Texas and Pacific 5-1/2 (1884) 73-5/8 (1881)

Wabash 2 (1885) 60 (1881)

Atchison and Topeka 23-3/4 (1890) 152-1/2 (1880)

Chicago, Burlington and

Quincy 75-7/8 (1891) 182-1/2 (1881)

N. Y. & N. E. 9 (1884) 86 (1881)

Wisconsin Central 2 (1880) 39 (1881)

Union Pacific 28 (1884) 131 (1881)

And such fluctuations have always been rather the rule than the

exception. It is a gross outrage upon the investing public to let this

state of affairs continue. It should be corrected without delay.

How many high officials in charge of railroad property will under these

circumstances resist the temptation to speculate in the stock of their

companies, and, so long as it is permitted, how many will resist the

temptation to adopt such policies in the government of their roads as

will cause such fluctuations? It is a common report that it is not an

unfrequent occurrence for Senators and members of Congress to receive

information from railway officials that enables them to raise their

campaign funds by speculation in Wall Street.

Mr. Henry C. Adams, statistician of the Interstate Commerce Commission,

says in his third annual report:

"It certainly appears ... that the motive for ownership in

railroad stock is quite different from the ordinary motives

which lead men to invest in corporate enterprises, thus

presenting an additional proof that railways are a business

not subject to ordinary business rules."

There is no safer business in the world than railroad transportation;

there is none that has less elements of uncertainty; none whose returns

in the aggregate are less varying. Every other business in the country,

whether prospering or struggling, pays tribute to it. It rests on a cash

basis, and suffers probably less from hard times than any business of

its magnitude. Both the merchant and the manufacturer run large risks in

doing business largely on a credit basis. The farmer sows in the spring,

harvests in the fall, and often cannot realize on his products until

winter; but the railroad company always receives its pay as soon as its

work is done, and not unfrequently even before it is done. Statistics

show that railroad revenues are, in the aggregate, remarkably uniform,

and there is no reason why railroad securities should be less stable

than bank or insurance stocks. Mr. Jeans says:

"It is observable, in respect to the net profits from

railway working, that they have not fluctuated from year to

year in the same way as nearly all other profits have

done.... It comes, then, to this, that, next after land and

house property, the railway interest is the largest and most

important in the country. But it is superior to both of

these rival interests in its profit-earning capabilities,

yielding, as it does, more than 4 per cent. on the capital

expended, against a possible average of 2-1/2 to 3 per cent.

in respect to the others."

There may be some arguments in favor of bonding railroads, but this

practice is, upon the whole, productive of infinitely more evil than

good. The State should, therefore, compel railroad companies to

liquidate all of their bonded indebtedness without unnecessary delay. In

the proportion in which this is accomplished railroad shares will gain

in stability and value.

Railroad men complain that the small savings of the poor invested in

railroad securities do not yield adequate returns and are often lost in

consequence of the foreclosing of the roads in which these investments

have been made. Others complain that railroads are bankrupted in the

interest of designing bondholders. Still others charge that rich and

powerful roads contrive to obtain a controlling interest in the

depreciated stock of weaker roads and then manage these roads in their

own interest and greatly to the detriment of other stockholders. All

these evils would disappear if the law required the identity of actual

and virtual ownership. "Freezing-out" processes could no longer be

resorted to by expert directors to obtain without compensation the

property of their less sophisticated fellow stockholders. One railroad

could no longer obtain control of another by acquiring an insignificant

part of the sum total of its securities. There would be no longer any

clashing between the interests of bondholders and stockholders, and

railroads would no longer be managed in the interest of a small minority

of their owners.

In addition to the cancellation of all railroad mortgages the State

should require that all railroad stocks should, in the future, be paid

in full. Furthermore, roads should be built only from the proceeds of

the capital stock, and the expense of repairs should be defrayed from

the revenues of the road. Dividends should only be paid from surplus

earnings and should in no case exceed a fair rate of interest on the

actual present value of the road. The statistician to the Interstate

Commerce Commission suggests the creation of a special commission

charged with the duty of converting the actual capitalization of

railroad lines into a just value of their property. To do justice to

both the railroads and their patrons in the fixing of rates, it is

important that the just value of railroad property be ascertained, but

the work could probably be done with less friction by a cooperation of

National and State commissions. A number of reforms are needed within

the province of railroad management. Passenger rates are, as a rule, too

high, and out of all proportion to freight rates. Many passenger

tariffs still recognize the old stage-coach principle of fixing the fare

in an exact proportion to the distance traveled. Thus a passenger who

takes the train for a five-mile trip pays only fifteen cents for his own

transportation and that of one hundred pounds of baggage, while the

passenger who buys a ticket for a journey of one hundred miles pays, on

most American lines, exactly twenty times the amount paid by the

five-mile passenger. Here the principle of collecting terminal charges

is entirely ignored. Sufficient inducements are not held out to the

passenger to prolong his journey, and as a consequence of this

short-sighted policy of the railroad companies the average distance

traveled in the United States by each passenger, instead of having

gradually increased, has gradually decreased of late years until it is

now only 24.18 miles. The average freight haul in the United States is

120 miles, or about five times as long as the average journey per

passenger. How can such a difference be accounted for except by the

dissimilarity in the principles which govern the computation of

passenger and freight charges? The same rule should be adopted in fixing

passenger rates that is recognized by railroad men in fixing freight

rates: the rate per mile should decrease with the increase of the number

of miles traveled.

The principle of arranging passenger tariffs on a sliding scale has

found recognition in Europe. In Denmark first-class passenger fare is

3.13 cents for each of the first 47 miles, 2.67 cents for each of the

next 47 miles, and only 2.22 cents for every additional mile. The

practical application of this principle is, in fact, only limited by the

extent of the kingdom. In nearly all European countries a uniform

reduction, ranging from 20 to 30 per cent., is made from regular rates

for return trip tickets, and coupon tickets are issued to tourists

almost everywhere at largely reduced rates.

Hungary recently adopted a new method of making passenger and freight

tariffs for its state lines. This is now generally called the zone

system. There are two classes of tickets sold, one for short trips on

suburban or branch lines, the other for longer journeys on the main

lines. The distances that can be traveled on short or suburban lines are

divided into two zones of stations, and those on main lines into

fourteen zones. The division of the kingdom into zones is made with

Buda-Pesth as the center. A ticket purchased for a particular zone

carries the passenger to the end of that zone or any nearer station.

The following table will show the extent of each zone and the fares

paid:

--------------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------

| | LOCAL TRAINS. | FAST TRAINS.

ZONE | DISTANCE |------+------+------+------+------+------

--------------+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------

Short Lines.| | Fl. | Fl. | Fl. | Fl. | Fl. | Fl.

|First Station. | 0.30 | 0.15 | .10 | - | - | -

|Second Station.| .40 | .22 | .15 | - | - | -

1 | 1-25 km. | .50 | .40 | .25 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.30

2 | 26-40 " | 1.00 | .80 | .50 | 1.20 | 1.00 | .60

3 | 41-55 " | 1.50 | 1.20 | .75 | 1.80 | 1.50 | .90

4 | 56-70 " | 2.00 | 1.60 | 1.00 | 2.40 | 2.00 | 1.20

5 | 71-85 " | 2.50 | 2.00 | 1.25 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 1.50

6 | 86-100 " | 3.00 | 2.40 | 1.50 | 3.60 | 3.00 | 1.80

7 | 101-115 " | 3.50 | 2.80 | 1.75 | 4.20 | 3.50 | 2.10

8 | 116-130 " | 4.00 | 3.20 | 2.00 | 4.80 | 4.00 | 2.40

9 | 131-145 " | 4.50 | 3.60 | 2.25 | 5.40 | 4.50 | 2.70

10 | 146-160 " | 5.00 | 4.00 | 2.50 | 6.00 | 5.00 | 3.00

11 | 161-175 " | 5.50 | 4.40 | 2.75 | 6.60 | 5.50 | 3.30

12 | 176-200 " | 6.00 | 4.80 | 3.00 | 7.20 | 6.00 | 3.60

13 | 201-225 " | 7.00 | 5.30 | 3.50 | 8.40 | 6.50 | 4.20

14 | 225 km. | | | | | |

| and over | 8.00 | 5.80 | 4.00 | 9.60 | 7.00 | 4.80

(The florin is a little more than one-third of a dollar.)

A ride from a city to the first suburban station costs from 3 to 10

cents, according to class of car, and to the second station 5 to 13.6

cents. On through trains a person may travel 15 miles at a cost of from

8-1/2 to 20 cents, according to kind of train and class of car, a

hundred miles for from 85 cents to $2.00; 140 miles for from $1.15 to

$2.80 and any distance above 140 miles for from $1.35 to $3.25. A person

may thus travel from Buda-Pesth to Predeal, a distance of 472 miles,

with a third-class ticket for zone 14, purchased at a cost of $1.35, or

28-100 of a cent per mile.

Our railroad men with much complacency point to the fact that these

rates do not cover the forwarding of passengers' baggage and that this

service must be paid for separately. These charges, however, are very

moderate, being on 120 pounds of baggage 8-1/3 cents a distance of 34

miles or less, about 17 cents for a distance of more than 34 and less

than 62 miles, and about 34 cents for any distance over 62 miles. The

additional charge for carrying 120 pounds of baggage from Buda-Pesth to

Predeal is therefore about one-fourteenth of one cent per mile. It must

be admitted that this system of charging separately for passenger and

baggage is eminently just, for there is no good reason why the passenger

without baggage should be taxed to pay for the carriage of that of his

fellow-traveler.

The zone tariff was introduced on the state railways of Hungary by M.

Barosz, the Hungarian Minister of Commerce, on the 1st of August, 1889.

The adoption of the new tariff was ridiculed and condemned as visionary

by road experts, who even went so far as to prove to the satisfaction of

practical railroad men that the innovation was destined to be a failure.

For a month or two it almost seemed as if their prediction might be

fulfilled, the number of passengers carried remaining behind the number

carried during the corresponding period of previous years. But soon the

reaction set in. The month of November, 1889, already witnessed an

increase in the number of passengers as well as in receipts over the

same month of the year previous. The result of the first year's trial

demonstrated the wisdom of the "innovation." The number of passengers

carried, which had been only 5,186,227 in 1888-89, rose to 13,060,751 in

1889-90, and the total receipts for passengers and baggage rose from

9,138,715 florins to 11,186,321 florins, a gain of 2,047,606 florins, or

22 per cent., during the first year. There is a continued increase both

in the number of passengers and in receipts, and the success of the

system must be pronounced phenomenal. The railroad experts of Europe,

who had predicted the signal failure of the zone system, now that the

unexpected has happened, are trying to discover the particular favorable

conditions which made the success of the system possible in Hungary. It

will probably be a decade, or even two, before the railroad experts of

both hemispheres will be entirely reconciled to this new application of

the old principle that a reduction in the price of a commodity increases

the demand for it.

It is strange, indeed, that intelligent men should be so slow in

recognizing an economic principle for which both history and daily

experience furnish an unlimited number of illustrations. The post-office

receipts everywhere have increased with a reduction in postage. The

Government telegraph in England did not become self-supporting until

Parliament made a sweeping reduction in its rates. The revenue from the

Brooklyn bridge never paid a fair interest on the capital expended in

its construction until its tolls were cut down. Were it necessary,

hundreds of other examples could be added to these.

Hungary has also applied the zone system to its freight traffic. Three

zones are fixed for the carrying of goods, viz.: Zone I, for distances

less than 200 kilometers (124 miles); Zone II, for distances over 200

and less than 400 kilometers, and Zone III, for distances over 400

kilometers. A uniform tariff is established for each zone, which is

one-third less than the average freight rates for equal distances

formerly in force. American railroads should profit by the wisdom and

experience of the Hungarian Government, and adopt at an early day such

features of its system as upon our soil and under our institutions may

be made practicable. The Hungarian system, with some modifications, is

now being tried by Austria and a few of the German states, and is

increasing railroad revenues wherever adopted.

There is a growing demand for lower fares. This demand increases in the

same proportion in which the desire and the necessity for travel

increase. European states have not been slow to meet it. Reductions are

made everywhere, and chiefly favor the lower classes. Thus, when France,

within the last year, changed her passenger tariff, she reduced

first-class fare 9 per cent., second-class fare 18 per cent., and

third-class 27 per cent.

The European passenger reports show the numbers of first and

second-class passengers are continually falling off, while those of the

third-class passengers are fast increasing. In England and Wales the

number of first-class passengers fell between 1875 and 1889 from

37,000,000 to 24,000,000 while the number of third-class passengers

increased during that same period from 350,000,000 to 601,000,000, and

this increase still continues. In the United Kingdom the number of

third-class passengers for 1891 was over 750,000,000. Furthermore,

passenger revenue comes chiefly from the third class. In the United

Kingdom the receipts from first-class passengers were in 1889

L3,188,000; from second-class passengers, L2,705,000; and from

third-class passengers, L19,785,000. It is thus seen that receipts from

third-class passengers are nearly 3-1/2 times as large as those from the

first and second-class passengers combined. A similar proportion is

found in nearly every country on the continent. European roads

discovered some years ago that first and second-class passengers were

carried at a loss, and all the passenger earnings were derived from

third-class passengers. The profits from this source show a considerable

increase every year.

The average fare per mile is 2.15 cents in the United States, and only

1.17 cents in Germany, 1.67 cents in Austria, 1.18 cents in Belgium,

1.29 cents in Denmark, 1.45 cents in France, 1.64 cents in Italy, and

1.45 cents in Russia. It is often claimed by railroad men that we travel

more luxuriously than the people of any other country in the world, but

it should not be forgotten that traveling in the United States is also

more expensive than anywhere else. It is contended that class

distinctions are odious in America, and that second and third-class cars

would not be patronized. The same argument might be applied to theaters,

hotels, clothiers, grocers, etc. It is difficult to see why distinction

here should be less odious than on the railroad train. The truth is,

Americans are just like other people and will avail themselves of

accommodations in keeping with their means if they have the opportunity.

Many passengers who will not travel in an uncouth smoking-car would, if

clean second-class cars were provided, gladly dispense with the luxury

of an upholstered seat if by doing so they could save from $5 to $10 a

day.

A common laborer in this country earns from a dollar to a dollar and a

half a day, and in the performance of his labor as a rule suffers

greater inconvenience than does the traveler who travels the country in

a second-class car. Is it under these circumstances at all likely that

the American would hesitate to travel for a day in a plain but clean

car, if by doing so he could save a week's earnings? We may even go

further and say that it is a very reasonable assumption that the man who

earns his bread by the sweat of his brow would choose the cheaper car if

the difference in one day's fare were equal to one day's wages. It is a

common saying in Europe that the first-class passengers consist of lords

and fools, and few of the hundreds of thousands of American tourists

traveling abroad give the natives occasion to class them with either.

The first-class car has almost fallen into disuse in Europe, and even

the patronage of the second-class is less than ten per cent, of that of

the third.

Reduced rates for return tickets should be provided under rules and

regulations of commissioners.

The Massachusetts legislature recently passed a law requiring the

railways of that State to sell interchangeable thousand-mile tickets for

$20. The State commission is given power to except any company from its

requirements if the public welfare or the financial condition require or

demand it. This is a step in the right direction and should be followed

by other States. Michigan also requires certain roads to carry

first-class passengers at two cents per mile.

Railroad companies should be compelled to discard the pass as a

courtesy as well as a consideration. The giving of passes under the

guise of mileage books, or tickets for pretended or unnecessary

services, is very pernicious and should be prohibited. Such a reform

would soon enable them to offer low fares to all. An employe may be

furnished free transportation while actually engaged in the business of

his company, and it should be made the duty of the State and National

commissions to make proper regulations governing such free

transportation of employes. Half-fare tickets for adults should also be

abolished. The pauper ticket is given to the minister of the gospel to

secure for the railroads the influence of the pulpit, though offered

under the pretense of charity or support of the church. The State should

not permit the railroad companies to practice this or any other kind of

charity at the expense of the general public. The railroad is a highway,

and the company operating it is entitled to rates sufficient to pay

operating expenses and a fair interest on the value of the property. It

can therefore easily be seen that the so-called gifts show no liberality

on the part of the railroad company, but are made at the expense of

other people. Donations made by railroad companies should be made from

the pockets of their stockholders and not from the pockets of their

patrons.

All perquisites of railroad officers should be abolished. When a railway

official has become so pompous and consequential that he requires a

special car, it is about time to look about for his successor. If we are

to have a special-car aristocracy in this country let it be supported at

the expense of some other interest.

Another railroad reform is needed on this side of the Atlantic. While

the great majority of railroad officials are courteous and considerate,

and perform their duties in the most agreeable and acceptable manner,

there are a few who do not properly appreciate the relation which they

sustain to the patrons of their companies. They are inclined to forget

that they are quasi-public servants, and that the public has a right to

demand courteous treatment at their hands. All railroad employes should

realize that their first duty is to administer to the welfare and the

convenience of the public, and each one should have the full protection

of the law in his efforts to do so. The American public objects much

less to an inferior car than to rude treatment by the companies' agents.

Railroad superintendents may justly be blamed for the incivilities of

their subordinates. It is their duty to know the character of those whom

they employ, and not to retain in their employ those who are derelict in

their duty to the public. Nothing offends the feelings of a true

American more than the display of a bureaucratic spirit on the part of

public servants. Nothing more commends a line of railroad to the public

than uniform painstaking kindness and courteous treatment on the part of

its employes. It is made the duty of railroad employes of France "to so

treat the public as if they were eager to oblige it," and the very first

paragraph of the official instructions to the railroad employes of

Germany enjoins them "to assume a modest and polite demeanor in their

intercourse with the public." In this connection it might be stated that

the second paragraph of those instructions positively forbids the

acceptance of any gratuity by a railroad employe. If our American

sleeping and dining-car companies would give their employes adequate

compensation and then adopt and enforce the German rule concerning

"tipping," their service would gain popularity and their employes

self-respect.

Entrance into the railway service should be by agreement for a definite

time, and dismissals and resignations should be governed by rules agreed

upon by boards of commissioners and the companies.

The use of the corporation has done so much to secure for capital so

large a share of the profits of industrial enterprises, and large

salaries also for the officers who manage them, that laborers have been

led to organize themselves into associations for like purposes, and

ambitious men have not been slow in availing themselves of the

advantages afforded them in this new field.

It is right and proper for laborers to organize such associations when

they can do so under wise and economical management, for the purpose of

securing greater intelligence, better education, higher culture, higher

wages, a shorter work-day, and a general ameliorating of their

condition, all of which will tend to make them more efficient workmen

and also better enable them to resist the aggression of centralized

wealth; for, in the absence of organization, the single-handed employe

of the great modern employer is comparatively helpless. But if these

organizations are allowed to be controlled by ignorant, unreasonable or

designing men, who will, at trifling provocations, resort to violent and

unlawful measures, they are sure to prove harmful, and a great

detriment, instead of a help, to their members, and the sooner they are

abandoned the better for all.

Great conflicts are sure to arise between organized capital and

organized labor, and they must be settled in a reasonable way, or

anarchy will prevail. They cannot be left for headstrong or

inconsiderate men representing either side to determine, but the line

must be drawn by the public authorities.

Each year affords accumulated evidence of the necessity of extending

legal restrictions over the management of the railway business, and the

law, as laid down by Judge Ricks to the Ann Arbor strikers last March,

in the United States Circuit Court, at Toledo, is undoubtedly correct

and will meet with general approval from the public.

He says:

"You are engaged in a service of a public character, and the

public are interested not only in the way in which you

perform your duties while you continue in that service, but

are quite as much interested in the time and circumstances

under which you quit that employment. You cannot always

choose your own time and place for terminating these

relations. If you are permitted to do so you might quit your

work at a time and place and under circumstances which would

involve irreparable damage to your employers and jeopardize

the lives of the traveling public."

Mr. Powderly, in commenting upon the above decision, does not complain

of it, but says:

"The decision shows, as I have said before, that the

principle of Government ownership of the railroads is being

recognized by the courts. While the decision is apparently

against the men, it emphasizes our position that the

Government has the right to supervise the railroads. Now it

is a poor rule that won't work both ways.

"The Interstate Commerce Law was passed for the purpose of

controlling the railroads, but up to date no railroad has

paid any attention to the law. Anarchy of the worst kind has

prevailed. By that I mean a total disregard of the law, and

that is what the corporations charge against the anarchists.

The courts hold themselves in readiness to obey the will of

the corporations when a charge is made against the workmen,

but no effort is made to carry out the mandates of the law

when the provokers of strikes, the corporations, violate the

law."

There is but little doubt, if the judges of the Federal courts would

show the same zeal in holding railroad managers amenable to the law as

Judge Ricks has displayed in this case with the employes, they would

secure increased confidence from the people in the tribunals over which

they preside.

All fair-minded persons will agree that labor as well as capital must be

subjected to proper restraints, and that the public will demand nothing

unreasonable from either.

Accidents are too frequent upon American railroads. The reports of the

Interstate Commerce Commission give the following as the numbers killed

and injured during the years named:

---------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------

| 1888 | 1889 | 1890 | 1891

|Killed. Injured|Killed. Injured|Killed. Injured|Killed. Injured

---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------

Employees| 2,070 | 20,148| 1,972 | 20,028| 2,451 | 22,396| 2,660 | 26,140

Passeng's| 315 | 2,138| 310 | 2,146| 286 | 2,425| 293 | 2,972

Others | 2,897 | 3,602| 3,541 | 4,135| 3,598 | 4,206| .... | ....

---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------

Total | 5,282 | 25,888| 5,823 | 26,309| 6,335 | 29,027| .... | ....

---------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------

For the year ending June 30, 1890, the total number of employes was

749,801. There was, therefore, one death for every 306 men employed and

one injury for every 33 men employed. For the previous year one was

killed for every 357 men employed, and one was injured for every 35 men

employed. While trainmen represent but 20 per cent, of the total number

of employes, the casualties among them represent 58 per cent. of the

total number of casualties.

For the year 1888, one passenger was killed in every 1,523,133

passengers carried, and one injured in every 220,024 carried.

The corresponding rate in England for the year 1888 is one passenger

killed for every 6,942,336 carried, and one injured for every 527,577

carried.

Railroads doing a large business should be compelled to adopt the most

improved appliances for avoidance of accidents.

The occupation of trainmen is especially hazardous, and too long

continued service should not be required, but proper intervals of rest

should be allowed. It is to the want of this, undoubtedly, that a great

many of the serious accidents are owing.

No more Sunday trains should be run than are absolutely necessary.

Provision should be made by law to enable trainmen to procure insurance

at the lowest rate possible, for indemnity against loss of health, life

or limb.

It was only a few days before the great disaster occurred on the Hudson

River Railroad at Hastings, over a year ago, that an announcement had

been made to the public of the extreme prosperity of the road during the

year. The great slaughter that occurred there is another illustration of

the disregard of public duty, and another instance of the sacrifice of

life and limbs of passengers and employes by a railway corporation in

order to secure large dividends on watered stock. It is not only gross,

but criminal neglect for a company with such an immense income not to

provide greater safety appliances, and the coroner's jury in this case

was too modest when it decided that the management of the road was

morally responsible for the disaster.

Parliament has compelled the British railways to adopt, in the interest

of the public safety, the block system and continuous brake, and great

lines like the New York Central and Hudson River companies should be

compelled to adopt such improvements.

The traveling public has another grievous cause for complaint. There are

but few companies that make any efforts to have their trains connect

with those of rival roads. On the contrary, a good deal of scheming is

often done by railroad companies to so arrange their time-tables with

reference to those of their rivals as to inconvenience passengers as

much as possible by delays at competing points. To remedy this evil the

State should require that every time-table should have the approval of

proper authorities, and no change should be permitted without their

approval.

Railroad companies are chartered for the purpose of promoting the public

welfare, and every violation of their charter should be punished.

It should be the main object of railroad legislation to compel companies

to fulfill their public obligations without depriving them of their

efficiency. Above all things these companies should be stripped of the

power to use their great wealth for the purposes of corruption or the

attainment of political influence. Our railroads to-day probably

represent no less than one-fourth of the personal property of the

country, and this vast wealth is controlled by a comparatively small

number of men, many of whom have in the course of time become so

arrogant and despotic that they have little regard for popular rights or

the expressed will of a free people.

It is reported that when, a few years ago, a representative of the press

directed Mr. Vanderbilt's attention to the fact that the public

disapproved of his railroad policy, the latter gave vent to his contempt

for public opinion by the no less profane than laconic reply: "The

public be damned." Ex-Railroad Commissioner Coffin called on one of the

Goulds to urge the adoption of the automatic car-coupler and other

safety appliances for the roads controlled by them. He was very curtly

told that not a cent would be expended by the Gould roads for such a

purpose until the West had repealed its obnoxious railroad laws. The

Gould dynasty thus intends to accomplish the repeal of these laws by

coercion. Railroad magnates and their lieutenants often show still

greater arrogance in dealing directly with their employes.

It may be difficult for railroad managers of the present school to adapt

themselves to new conditions; it may be impossible for them to

understand how any other practices than those which have long been

established can succeed; yet in spite of them both the law and public

sentiment have already undergone great changes, and still greater

changes will follow. It may take years to accomplish this work; to bring

about any great reform requires time and a deter, mined purpose on the

part of its advocates. Yet I believe the era is not far off when

railroads will be limited to their legitimate sphere as common carriers,

when they will treat all persons and all places as impartially as does

the Government in the mail service, when their chief factor in

rate-making will be the cost of service, when they will respect the

rights of the public and those of their stockholders, insuring perfect

service to the former and fair profits upon the actual value of the

lines operated to the latter.

The fact should, finally, not be overlooked that it is in the power of

the General Government to prevent many railroad abuses, and especially

excessive freight charges, by the improvement of our rivers and harbors.

That our water-courses act as levelers of interstate rates is apparent

from the fact that railroad rates invariably rise with the freezing of

the water-ways and fall with the opening of river and lake navigation.

By connecting, wherever feasible, our large Western rivers with the

great lakes, the Government could greatly extend the reign of

competition in transportation, and thereby keep freight rates within

reasonable bounds. Lake transportation even now plays an important role.

In 1892 it was not less than 20,000,000,000 ton miles during the season

of eight months' duration, and it is almost equal to one-fourth of the

total ton mileage of all the railroads in the country for the entire

year. The average rate of lake transportation has been reduced to 1.3

mills per ton per mile, which is only about one-seventh of the average

railroad freight rate in the United States.

Where the masses hold the sovereign power, there, if anywhere, the

welfare of the people should be the supreme law. Violent political

commotions never disturb the government whose policy is to secure the

greatest good to the greatest number. Thorold Rogers justly remarks that

the strength of communism lies in the misconduct of administrations, the

sustentation of odious and unjust privileges and the support of what are

called vested interests. Lord Coleridge, in a remarkable article

published not long ago, recommended a revision of the laws relating to

property and contract, in order to facilitate the inevitable transition

from feudalism to democracy, and laid down the rule that the laws of

property should be made for the benefit of all, and not for the benefit

of a class.

During the middle ages, and even up to the beginning of the present

century, nearly all the laws on the statute books looked towards the

protection of the rights of the feudal lord. Provision was made for the

expeditious collection of his dues and a severe punishment of his

delinquent debtor. The peasant was forced to labor fifteen hours per day

and three hundred and sixty-five days in the year to pay the baron's

rentals and sustain life. The law permitted him to be flogged for

failing to courtesy the feudal lord, and to be executed for injury to

the lord's person, while to kill a peasant was no worse a misdemeanor

than to kill his lordship's favorite dog or falcon. In short, all laws

were made to protect and perpetuate the wealth and power of the few by

impoverishing, humbling and enslaving the masses.

The age of feudalism has given way to an age of democratic liberty, but

there is many a feudal feature left in our statutes and many a feudal

doctrine is enunciated by our judges and learned expounders of modern

jurisprudence. In his decision in the Iowa tariff case Judge Brewer

said:

"I read also in the first section of the Bill of Rights of

this State [Iowa] that 'all men are by nature free and equal

and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those

of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,

possessing and protecting property and pursuing and

obtaining safety and happiness,' and I know that while that

remains as the supreme law of the State, no legislature can,

directly or indirectly, lay its withering or destroying hand

on a single dollar invested in the legitimate business of

transportation."

Had Judge Brewer taken the pains to read on, he would have found in

section 2 of the Bill of Rights the following:

"All political power is inherent in the people; government

is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of

the people."

It is strange that the learned Judge failed to see the difference

between "men," the creatures of God, "by nature free and equal," and

"possessing certain inalienable rights," and corporations, the creatures

of man, having no rights except those which the State sees fit to give

them. Had the learned Judge perused the whole of the document to which

he refers, he would have found in article VIII, section 12, the

following provision:

"The General Assembly shall have power to amend or repeal

all laws for the organization or creation of corporations,

or granting of special or exclusive privileges or

immunities, by a vote of two-thirds of each branch of the

General Assembly."

It should thus have been plain to the learned Judge that in Iowa

corporations have not human or inalienable rights, and government was

not instituted for their special protection, but for the protection,

security and benefit of her people. Nor should it be otherwise.

The corporation for pecuniary gain has neither body nor soul. Its

corporeal existence is mythical and ethereal. It suffers neither from

cold nor from hunger, has neither fear of future punishment nor hope of

future reward. It takes no interest in schools or in churches. It knows

neither charity nor love, neither pity nor sympathy, neither justice nor

patriotism. It is deaf and blind to human woe and human happiness. Its

only aim is pecuniary gain, to which it subordinates all else.

Should the State sacrifice the welfare of all her people rather than lay

its "withering or destroying" hand on a single dollar of corporate

wealth? Are there no human rights, for the protection of which

government was established, more sacred than the rights of a wealthy

corporation's dollar? Have the people made the judiciary a coordinate

branch of the Government in order that it may protect the vested or

rather usurped rights of corporations against legislative attempts to

curtail them? If the courts so interpret the power which has been

delegated to them, they will awake one day to the painful reality that

popular convictions of right are more potent than judicial decrees.

It is the duty of the State not so much to defend the so-called vested

rights of corporations as to make such just and beneficial laws as will

temper inequality, mitigate poverty, protect the weak against the

strong, preserve life and health, and, in short, promote the welfare and

the happiness of the masses. Constitutions have been made to accomplish

these ends, to protect the lives, the liberty and the conscience of

human beings, while laws have been sufficient to protect the dollars of

corporations. It is a short-sighted policy on the part of the latter to

take unfair advantage of their wealth and influence, for "As ye sow, so

shall ye reap," is the inexorable law of Providence. There is no dynasty

so mighty, no class so privileged, no interest so influential or wealthy

as to obtain immunity from its operation.

APPENDIX.

TABLE No. 1.

COMPILED FROM THE SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION.

Mileage in the United States June 30, 1891 168,402.74

Number of men employed 784,285

Number of employes per 100 miles 486

Number of locomotives per 100 miles 19

Number of passenger cars per 100 miles 17

Number of cars per 100 miles 721

Capital $9,829,475,015

Capital per mile 60,942

Gross earnings 1,096,761,395

Gross earnings per mile 6,801

Operating expenses 731,887,893

Operating expenses per mile 4,538

Net income from operation 364,873,502

Net income per mile 2,263

Of gross income 67.17 per cent. was earned on freight.

Of gross income 25.64 per cent. was earned on passengers.

Received for carrying mails $ 24,870,015

Received rentals from express companies 21,594,349

Received from investments 133,911,126

No. of passengers carried 531,183,988

No. of tons freight carried 675,608,323

Average journey per passenger 24.18 miles

Average haul per ton of freight 120 miles

Average number passengers per train 42

Average number tons freight per train 181.67

Average revenue per passenger per mile 2.142 cents

Average revenue per ton per mile of freight .895 cents

Average revenue per train mile, passenger $1.06

Average revenue per train mile, freight 1.64

TABLE No. 2.

STATISTICS OF THE RAILWAYS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FOR THE YEAR ENDING

DEC. 31, 1891.

From the English Reform Almanac for 1893 and from the Report of

Commissioners R. Giffen and Courtenay Boyle to the Board of Trade.

Mileage 20,191 miles

Double, triple or quadruple 10,853 miles

Capital per mile L45,536

Gross income per mile 3,873

Net income per mile 1,818

Income from passenger traffic 35,130,916

Income from goods traffic 43,230,717

Income from miscellaneous 3,498,974

------------

Income, total L81,860,607

Operating expenses, 55 per cent L45,144,778

Rates and taxes 2,246,430

Government duty 321,260

Paid for persons injured 165,219

Paid for damage and loss of goods 257,804

Number of first-class passengers 30,423,776

Number of second-class passengers 63,378,397

Number of third-class passengers 751,661,495

Number of third-class passengers over 88 per cent. of all.

Number of employes 346,426

Number of employes per 100 miles 1,750

Number of locomotives per 100 miles 80

Number of passenger cars per 100 miles 249

Number of freight and other cars 2,595

Revenue per train mile 58.37d

Expense per train mile 30.54d

Per cent. of earnings on capital 4.21

TABLE No. 3.

SHOWING SALARIES AND WAGES PAID TO OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYES OF STATE

RAILWAYS IN EUROPE.

Compiled from Roell's Encyclopaedie des Eisenbahnwesens.

=======================================================================

POSITION. | AUSTRIA. | HUNGARY. | PRUSSIA. | BELGIUM.

-----------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-----------

| Fl., equal | Fl., equal | Mark, equal | Fr., equal

| to about | to about | to about | to about

|33-1/3 cents.|33-1/3 cents.| 24 cents. | 20 cents.

| | | |

President | 7,000 | --- |10,500 | 9,000

Directors and | | | |

Superintendents | 4,000-5,500 | 4,000-4,800 | 4,200-6,000 | 7,000-8,000

Chief Engineer | 1,600-2,000 | 1,900-2,500 | 3,600-4,800 | 2,700-5,500

Clerks | 500-1,200 | 640-1,000 | 1,000-2,700 | 900-3,100

Station Agents in| | | |

Cities, Division| | | |

Superintendents | 2,200-2,600 | 2,600-3,400 | --- | ---

Station Agents | | | |

in Towns | 500-850 | 520-880 | 1,500-3,200 | 1,600-4,000

Locomotive | | | |

Engineers | 500-850 | 520-780 | 1,200-2,000 | ---

Firemen | 300-350 | 380-480 | 1,000-1,500 | ---

Conductors | 450-550 | 520-850 | 1,100-1,500 | 2,000-2,400

Brakemen | 300-350 | 380-480 | 800-1,200 | 1,200-2,000

Section Men | 288-336 | 270-370 | 700-900 | ---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE No. 4.

Compiled from Roell's Encyclopaedie des Eisenbahnwesens.

_FREIGHT TARIFFS._--BELGIUM.

All freight is divided into three general classes:

1. _Express Freight_, which is delivered by special messengers. Parcels

weighing 5 kg. (11 lbs.) and less, if prepaid, are carried for .80 fr.

(16c.) for all distances. Parcels not prepaid and such as weigh from 6

to 10 kg. pay .90 fr. for a distance of from 1 to 25 km.; 1 fr. for 26

to 75 km.; 1.10 fr. for greater distances.

2. _Fast Freight_, which may be made use of for consignments weighing up

to 200 kg. (440 lbs.) Parcels weighing up to 5 kg. pay .50 fr. for all

distances. Parcels not prepaid and such as weigh from 5 to 10 kg. pay

.50 fr. for from 1 to 25 km.;.60 fr. for distances ranging from 26 to 75

km., and .70 fr. over 75 km.

3. _Common Freight_, which is again sub-divided into four classes: In

Class I 400 kg., in Classes II and III 5,000 kg., and in Class IV 10,000

kg. is recognized as the minimum weight.

* * * * *

TARIFF FOR THE FOUR DIFFERENT CLASSES OF COMMON FREIGHT.

_Terminal Charges--Franc 1.00._

I Class--For 1,000 kg. (2,250 lbs.)

From 1 to 5 km Fr. 1.00

From 6 to 75 km, per km .10

From 76 to 150 km .08 (per km. above 75)

From 151 to 200 km .06 (per km. above 150)

Above 300 km .06 (per km. above 200)

II Class--For 1,000 kg.

From 1 to 5 km. Fr. 0.40

From 6 to 75 km., per km. .08

From 76 to 125 km. .04 (per km. above 75)

Above 125 km. .02 (per km. above 125)

III Class--For 1,000 kg.

From 1 to 5 km. Fr. 0.30

From 6 to 75 km., per km. .06

From 76 to 100 km. .03

From 101 to 125 km. .02

Above 125 km. .01

IV Class--For 1,000 kg.

From 1 to 24 km., per km. Fr. 0.06

From 25 to 75 km., per km. .04

From 76 to 100 km. .02

From 101 to 350 km. .01

Above 350 km. .02

For distances from 1 to 24 km. the terminal charges are only

.5 fr. for Class IV.

TABLE No. 5.

GERMANY.

The tariff recognizes the following distinctions:

1. Fast parcel freight.

2. Fast carload freight.

3. Parcel freight.

4. General carload Class A1, for shipments of at least

5,000 kg.

5. General carload Class B, for shipments of at least

10,000 kg.

6. Special tariffs.

_Distance charges per ton per kilometer: (Pfennig, 1/4 c.)_

1. For parcel 11.0 pfennige

2. For carload Class A1 6.7 "

3. For carload Class B 6.0 "

4. For Special Tariff A2 5.0 "

5. For Special Tariff I 4.5 "

6. For Special Tariff II 3.5 "

7. For Special Tariff III:

For distances up to 100 km 2.6 "

For distances above 100 km 2.2 "

8. For fast parcel freight 22.0 "

9. For fast carload freight, twice the rate of Classes

A1 and B.

_Terminal Changes._

1. For parcels and carload Class A1:

Up to 10 km 10 pfennige

From 11 to 20 km 11 "

From 21 to 30 km 12 "

From 31 to 40 km 13 "

From 41 to 50 km 14 "

From 51 to 60 km 15 "

From 61 to 70 km 16 "

From 71 to 80 km 17 "

From 81 to 90 km 18 "

From 91 to 100 km 19 "

Above 100 km 20 "

2. For carload Class B:

Up to 10 km 8 pfennige

From 11 to 20 km 9 "

From 21 to 30 km 10 "

From 31 to 40 km 11 "

Above 40 km 12 "

3. For Special Tariffs A2, I, II and III:

Up to 10 km 8 pfennige

From 11 to 100 km 9 "

Above 100 km 12 "

_Charges for Live Stock._

(a) Horses. Terminal charge per head, 1 m. (24c.)

Distance charge per kl. for one head 0.30 mark

Charge per kl. for 2 head .40 "

Charge for each additional head .10 "

(b) Cattle.

Terminal charge, per head 0.60 mark

Distance charge per kl., for one head .10 "

Distance charge for each additional head .03 "

Terminal charge, per head 0.20 mark

Distance charge, per kl., for each of the

first 10 heads .02 "

Distance charge, per kl., for each

additional head .01 "

If shipped in carloads the charges for live stock are .03 m.

per square meter per kilometer.

TABLE No. 6.

FRANCE.

The French railroads divide all freight into six different classes. The

following is the tariff adopted by a majority of the principal roads:

_Common Freight._

==================================================

| Centimes per Ton--Kilometer.

--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----

Classes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----

Up to 25 km | 16 | 14 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 8

From 26 to 100 km | 16 | 14 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 4

From 101 to 150 km | 15 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 3.5

From 151 to 200 km | 15 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 7 | 3.5

From 201 to 300 km | 15 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 4 | 3.5

From 301 to 500 km | 14 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 3

From 501 to 600 km | 13 | 11 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 3

From 601 to 700 km | 12 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2.5

From 701 to 800 km | 11 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 2.5

From 801 to 900 km | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 2.5

From 901 to 1000 km | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2

Above 1,000 km | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2

--------------------------------------------------

The rates for fast parcel freight are, on all roads, for less

than 40 kg., per ton, km.:

Up to 200 km 35 centimes

From 201 to 300 km 32 "

From 301 to 400 km 31 "

From 401 to 800 km 30 "

From 801 to 1,000 km 28 "

Above 1,000 km 25 "

For more than 40 kg.:

Up to 100 km 32 centimes

From 101 to 300 km 30 "

From 301 to 500 km 28 "

From 501 to 600 km 26 "

From 601 to 700 km 24 "

From 701 to 800 km 22 "

From 801 to 900 km 20 "

From 901 to 1,000 km 18 "

Above 1,000 km 16 "

Express parcels weighing up to 3 kg. (6-3/5 lbs.), pay 1 fr. for

all distances, and parcels weighing from 3 to 5 kg. pay

fr. 1.20. Delivery to the house, 25 centimes (5c.)

additional.

Live Stock, per piece, per km.:

Horses and cattle 16 centimes

Calves and hogs 6 "

Sheep, etc. 3 "

TABLE No. 7.

ITALY.--_Freight Tariff._

========================================================================

| GENERAL CLASSES.

RATES. |------+------+-----+------+-------+------+-----+------

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------

For the ton--km |0.1632|0.1428|0.1224|0.1020|0.0816|0.0714|0.612|0.0510

per ton. |2.04 |2.04 |2.04 |2.04 |2.04 |1.224 |1.224|1.224

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rate on merchandise sent as fast freight is .452 lire (9c.) per ton

kilometer.

_Live Stock--(5 Classes.)_

=======================================================================

----------------+--------+---------+----------------+--------+---------

1 head, per km | 0.1530 | 0.136 |1 head, per km | 0.1530 | 0.1326

2 heads, per km | .0918 | .0765 |2 heads, per km | .0816 | .0714

3 heads, per km | .0816 | .0714 |3 heads, per km | .0663 | .0612

4 heads, per km | .0765 | .0663 |4 heads, per km | .0612 | .0561

5 heads, per km | .0714 | .0612 |5 heads, per km | .0561 | .0510

6 heads or more,| | |6 heads or more,|

per km | .0663 | .0561 | per km | .0510 | .0459

| | |III Class | | .02244

| | |IV Class | | .01224

| | |V Class | | .00612

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE No. 8.

_Austrian Tariff (in kreutzers).--July 1, 1891._

=============================================================================

|--------+-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----|

| Rate | Rate | I | II | A | B | C | 1 | 2 | 3 |Rate

-------------+--------+-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+------

1 to 50 km | 1.20 |0.60 |0.60|0.50|0.34|0.24|0.18|0.26|0.18|0.15|0.12

50 to 150 km | 1.16 | .58 | .58| .46| .29| .22| .15| .23| .15| .13| .10

150 to 300 km| 1.12 | .56 | .56| .42| .25| .18| .12| .19| .12| .10| .09

addit'n'l km| 1.00 | .50 | .50| .30| .20| .12| .10| .15| .10| .08| .08

| | | | | | | | | | |

| _Terminal Charges._

1 to 30 km | 6.0 |3.0 |3.0 |3.0 |3.0 |2.0 |2.0 |2.0 |2.0 |2.0 |2.0

31 to 80 km | 6 |3 |3 |3 |3 |3 |3 |3 |3 |3 |2

Above 80 km | 8 |4 |4 |4 |4 |4 |4 |4 |4 |4 |2

-------------+--------+-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+------

_Horses_ and _mules_ are placed in Class II, with a minimum weight of

1,400 kg. for one head and 700 kg. for every additional head.

_Cattle_ are placed in Class II, and are billed at actual weight.

_Potatoes_, hay, straw, wood, coal and coke enjoy the "exceptional rate"

when shipped in carload lots.

TABLE No. 9.

_Hungarian Tariff (in kreutzers).--January 1, 1891._

=============================================================

| | Parcel | |

| Fast Freight. | Rate. | |

|--------+-------+----+----| |

| | | | | |

|Ordinary|Reduced| I | II | |

-------------------+--------+-------+----+----+-------------+

From 1 to 200 km. | 1.3 | 0.6 |0.72|0.52| 0.9 |

| | | | | |

From 201 to 400 km.| 1. | .5 | .52| .42| .8 |

| | | | | |

Above 400 km. | 1. | .5 | .52| .42| .8 |

| _Terminal Charges for 100 kg._

| .10 | .10 | .10| .10| .10 |

-------------------+--------+-------+----+----+-------------+

===============================================================

| | Special |Exceptional

| Carload Rate. | Tariff. | Tariff.

|----+----+------+----+----+----|-----+-----

| | | | | | | |

| A | B | C | I | II | III| I | II

-------------------+----+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----

From 1 to 200 km. |0.32|0.21| 0.16 |0.27|0.16|0.13|0.13 |0.11

| | | | | | | |

From 201 to 400 km.| .24| .17| .13 | .15| .13| .10| .10 | .09

| | | | | | | |

Above 400 km. | .16| .10| .09 | .10| .09| .07| .07 | .06

| .06| .06| .04 | .05| .04| .03| .03 | .03

-------------------+----+----+------+----+----+----+-----+------

Exceptional Tariff I comprises coal, wood, potatoes, stone, hay and

straw.

Exceptional Tariff II comprises manure, earth and Hungarian ores.

TABLE No. 10.

STATE OF IOWA.

SCHEDULE

REASONABLE MAXIMUM RATES OF CHARGES

IN EFFECT MARCH 1, 1893,

FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF

_Freight and Cars on each of the Railroads in the State of Iowa, together

with a Classification of Freights, prepared by the Railroad

Commissioners, in accordance with the Laws

of the State of Iowa._

* * * * *

Superseding all former schedules on the said railroads, including all

bridges and ferries used or operated in connection with any railroad;

and, also, all the roads in use by any corporation, receiver, trustee or

other person operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under

contract, agreement, lease or otherwise, or which may hereafter be

purchased, leased, acquired or operated within the State of Iowa.

The classification of freights applies to all the lines, regardless of

class. The schedule of maximum rates applies to all Class "A" roads. The

rates on Class "B" roads will be FIFTEEN per cent. higher, and

the rates on Class "C" roads THIRTY per cent. higher than the

rates named for Class "A" roads. The respective roads have been

classified by the Executive Council of the State as follows, which

classification is adopted by the Railroad Commissioners, and made part

of this schedule:

CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS.

CLASS "A."

Where gross annual earnings, per mile, shall be $4,000 or

more.--Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway; Chicago and

Northwestern Railway; Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad; Chicago,

Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific

Railway; Chicago and Great Western Railway (operating the Chicago, St.

Paul and Kansas City Railway); Dubuque and Sioux City Railroad; Chicago,

St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway; Sioux City and Northern

Railway; Chicago, Santa Fe and California Railway; Sioux City and

Pacific Railroad; Toledo, Peoria and Western Railway; Union Pacific

Railway.

CLASS "B."

Where gross earnings are $3,000 or over and less than $4,000 per

mile.--Iowa Central Railway; Kansas City, St. Joseph and Council Bluffs

Railroad; Omaha and St. Louis Railway.

CLASS "C."

Where annual earnings are less than $3,000 per mile.--Chicago,

Burlington and Kansas City Railway; Chicago, Ft. Madison and Des Moines

Railway; Chicago, Iowa and Dakota Railway; Crooked Creek Railroad and

Coal Company; Des Moines and Kansas City Railway; Des Moines, Northern

and Western Railway; Humeston and Shenandoah Railroad; Iowa Northern

Railway; Mason City and Fort Dodge Railroad; Minneapolis and St. Louis

Railway; St. Louis, Keokuk and Northwestern Railroad; Tabor and Northern

Railway; Wabash Railroad; Winona and Southwestern Railway; Keokuk and

Western Railway.

Burlington and Western; Burlington and Northwestern; Ames and College;

Albia and Centerville.

The Railroad Question A historical and practical treatise on railroads, and remedies for their abuses · 第 12 / 13 章

"5. That, with the amount of red tape that will be in use,