This will do little toward paying repairs, but that little is better than nothing. If you take at eleven cents freight that cost you twenty-five cents to handle, you lose fourteen cents on every ton you carry. If you refuse to take it at that rate, you lose fifteen cents on every ton you do not carry. For your charges for interest and repairs run on, while the other road gets the business."[138] Another peculiarity of railway competition, distinguishing it from competition in trade, is that there is no such thing as abandonment of the field. This is tersely expressed by Morawetz in his Corporation Law. "It should be observed that competition among railway companies has not the same safeguard as competition in trade. Persons will ordinarily do business only when they see a fair chance of profit, and if press of competition renders a particular trade unprofitable, those engaged in that trade will suspend or reduce their operations, and apply their capital or labor to other uses until a reasonable margin of profit is reached. But the capital invested in the construction of a railway cannot be withdrawn when competition renders the operation of the road unprofitable. A railway is of no use except for railway purposes, and if the operation of the road were stopped, the capital invested in its construction would be wholly lost. Hence it is for the interest of the railway company to operate its road, though the earnings are barely sufficient to pay the operating expenses. The ownership of the road may pass from the shareholders to the bond-holders, and be of no profit to the latter; but the struggle for traffic will continue so long as the means of paying operating expenses can be raised. Unrestricted competition will thus render the competitive traffic wholly unremunerative, and will cause the ultimate bankruptcy of the companies unless the operation of their traffic which is not the subject of competition can be made to bear the entire burden of the interest and fixed charges." So profoundly modified in short are the conditions of railway competition by contrast with those in industry, that it is clear beyond a shadow of doubt that a railway is essentially a monopoly. This requires no proof so far as local business, in distinction from through or competitive traffic, is concerned. It is equally true in respect to all traffic of sufficient importance to bring about pooling agreements or a division of the business, in order to forfend bankruptcy and consolidation. To attempt to perpetuate competition between railways by legislation is thus defeating its own end. The prohibition of pooling agreements which refuses to recognize the naturally monopolistic character of the business, can have but one result, namely, to compel consolidation as a measure of self-preservation. Such legislation defeats itself, bringing about the very result it was intended to prevent. * * * * *