The Railroad Question: A historical and practical treatise on railroads, and remedies for their abusesLarrabee, William
History
The Railroad Question: A historical and practical treatise on railroads, and remedies for their abuses
Larrabee, William
Railroads; Railroads -- United States; Railroads and state -- United States
"And this agreement shall be and remain in force for the term
of five years from and following the first day of September,
1878, after which period it may be terminated by sixty days'
written notice from either party.
"In witness whereof, the parties hereto have signed these
presents the day and year first above written.
"N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co.,
By J. H. RUTLER,
General Traffic Manager.
SCHOELLKOPF & MATHEWS."
It will be noticed that this agreement was based upon the expressed
condition that Schoellkopf & Mathews treat it as "confidential," and use
all reasonable precaution to keep it secret. It is difficult to account
for this strong injunction of secrecy except upon the assumption that
the managers of the road, conscious of the great wrong which they
inflicted upon the body of the people by their discriminations, hoped to
escape public criticism by adopting a policy of secret dealing. Much as
special rates were sought after, but few shippers to whom they had been
granted were contented with their lot, for none was confident that his
rivals did not have better rates than himself.
Discriminations between localities had their origin in the natural
desire of competing roads to increase their business at the expense of
their rivals. When two or more railroads touched the same point each
would attempt to secure the largest possible share of the through
business by holding out every possible inducement in rates to the
shippers of that place. Indeed, the freight rates at competitive points
were often so low that railroad managers found themselves placed in a
rather unpleasant dilemma. They either had to admit that the rates
charged by them at non-competitive places were exorbitant or that they
were carrying the freights of competitive points at a loss and were thus
squandering the money of their stockholders. They preferred as a rule
to admit that they were doing competitive business at a loss, but
asserted that, inasmuch as they were compelled to run their trains, they
could better afford to do competitive business temporarily at a loss
than not to do it at all. The same logic might with equal propriety be
employed by the grocer. To draw to him distant customers, he might offer
to sell to them at cost or even at a loss; and then, to recuperate, he
might advance the prices of his goods for his regular customers. If
there is any difference between the grocer and the railroad company, it
lies in the fact that the former's old customers would soon find relief
at a rival store, while the patrons of the railroad at non-competitive
points are like the traveler in the hands of a highwayman, without
immediate redress. The railway company which discriminates between
competitive and non-competitive points forgets that its line is a common
highway for all points tributary to it; that all have equal rights, and
that the only differences in tariff which the principles of the common
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account