10 per cent. Congress might reduce rates and the act creating the Texas and Pacific stipulated that rates were not to exceed those fixed by Congress for the Union Pacific. It is notable that all the acts of incorporation required more or less frequent amendment, almost seeming to have been regarded rather as entering wedges than as ultimate enactments. In answering the question, were the purposes with which the Pacific railways were constructed actually realized some consideration is necessary. When one thinks of the corruption, litigation, and loss involved, doubt arises. Military advantages were gained; the postal service was extended and its efficiency increased; lands were sold and settled. But at what cost? The conclusion seems inevitable that the gross gain was less than anticipated, while a net gain is doubtful. For one thing there was much friction between the government and the railways concerning rates and service in the transportation of the mails, and troops and military supplies; and the rates obtained were not as low as were hoped for. Again, the Asiatic trade did not prove to be of any considerable importance to the transcontinental railways, and the glowing hope held forth concerning it can not be said to have been realized. A question upon which a decision largely depends is, When would the communications have been opened and the lands settled had the Pacific railways not been built? Perhaps no very definite answer can be made, but it seems certain that within two decades private enterprise would have sufficed. It is not clear that the grants of land were of very great assistance to the railways during the period of construction. Constant demands for funds, failures, and receivership came in spite of them. The companies were ever ready to surrender their lands as security for sinking funds or to gain loans of government credit. Furthermore, it is sometimes forgotten that several different 1ailways and land grants were involved. It is probably true that the Union Pacific-Central Pacific route-one road to the Pacific was so urgently needed for political reasons that the act of 1862 was wise. But it seems that one great transcontinental line would have accomplished the purpose and private initiative supplied the others. Can anyone doubt that such roads as the Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe would have done their part? Certainly the West was gridironed with transcontinental routes sooner than if no aid had been given; certainly settlement was more rapid; but that haste may make waste, both for men and nations, was illustrated on a gigantic scale, and when the balance is struck the policy is found wanting. It is generally conceded that too much aid was given, but it is to be emphasized that this may mean too many lines were aided, as well as that too much aid was given to any one. Without standing for government ownership as a general policy, the question may be raised whether in this case our government might not have built the first Pacific railway with relative profit. As opposed to the policy of assistance which was adopted and administered it would seem simpler. Here private interest ran amuck and the tardy light of publicity only guided the historian. Economic waste and political corruption were rife, while constant litigation injured both railway credit and national dignity. In the light of history it may reasonably be maintained that the United States would have best solved the Pacific railway problem which confronted it in 1860 by constructing a national railway over the central route, leaving to private initiative, aided only by adequate rights of way and materials, the exploitation of secondary lines. 2 In 1886 and 1887 bills were introduced-and passed by the Senate-to prohibit congressmen from acting as attorneys or employees of railways chartered or aided by the government. This was done on the ground that the govern. ment's interests were suffering. The debate was filled with insinuations and innuendos, and was very disgraceful. (Cong. Globe, 1886-87, pp. 1127, 1344, 1360.) |