"But why cannot our railroad men, with our present train service, secure larger loads by making lower rates, and give us cheap service as well as plenty of it? Why cannot we secure two good things instead of one? For two reasons: First, because it is not certain that low rates will be followed by greatly increased travel; second, because such increased travel would not be so economical to handle in America as it is in Europe. It is wrong to assume that, because reductions of charges in Europe have increased travel enormously, they would have a proportionate effect in America and a corresponding advantage in American railroad economy. It is a somewhat significant fact that second-class trains at reduced rates have been extremely successful in Europe and not at all so in America. Other things being equal, the American public would be glad to have its travel at lower fares; but it cares more for comfort and speed, and for being able to travel at its own times, than for a slight difference in charge. The assumption so frequently made, that a reduction in fares would cause an enormous increase in travel in this country, is for the most part a pure assumption, not borne out by the facts." The great increase in business which has everywhere followed reductions in postage rates, telegraph rates and street-car fares, as well as railroad rates, sufficiently refutes the assertion that it is not certain that low rates would be followed by greatly increased travel. If the second class has not been as successful here as in Europe this is solely due to the fact that the American railroad companies have systematically discouraged second-class travel by forcing passengers into filthy and over-crowded cars. The statement that increased travel would not be so economical to handle in America as in Europe scarcely needs a reply. If, as Prof. Hadley says, the American public demand more frequent trains than the people of Europe, and if these frequent trains are not at present profitable to our railroad companies, it would seem to be plainly to their interest to hold out every inducement to the public to increase travel and thus fill their trains. Mr. Hadley does not aid his argument when, referring to the Hungarian zone system, he says: "The importance of the zone system in Austria and in Hungary lies in the fact that its adoption was accompanied by a great reduction in rates. The unit rate for slow, third-class trains, which had previously been nearly a cent and a half a mile, was reduced to less than one cent.... The use of railroads under the new system, though vastly greater than it was before, is vastly less than that of a well-managed American road at American rates." Mr. Hadley inadvertently presents here one of the very best reasons why our passenger rates should be reduced.