CHAPTER V. RAILWAY RATES-DISCRIMINATION-POOLS. The question of discriminatory rates is not a new one, nor confined to any particular country. It has been the subject of frequent investigation in Europe, but always with the same result, namely, that they are necessary and proper. "The unlimited power of varying their charges to the public, which the companies now use, ought not to be limited."* The abolishing of special rates, or the basing of rates on distance, the English government has found would prevent the railways competing with traffic by sea, canal and other routes, and, because of this, result to the detriment of the community, besides robbing the carrier of a profit legitimately belonging to him. The conclusions of the French authorities are the same. "The operation of railroads, like all other industries, is subject to the great law of economics; prices should be regulated according to the value of the transportation, as determined by the action of supply and demand. When different bases are adopted, such as the length of haul or the amount of cost, we are led into contradictions and impossibilities. A railroad, in its own interest, and in that of the country, ought not to *Royal commission, 1872. neglect any traffic of a kind that will increase its receipts more than its expenses."* Competition enforces equitable rates, and is the only guarantee we have of their maintenance. It secures the lowest possible rates (a) on the necessities of life, (b) on the comforts of life, (c) on luxuries and similar articles. It affects most favorably the poorer classes whose purchases are confined to the common necessities of life. To disturb competition, is to increase the burdens of such class, to make its struggle harder, to put the comforts of life farther and farther from its reach, to entirely deprive it of the hope of possessing a luxury. The word "discrimination," in modern railway literature and discussion, has become perverted. An improper meaning attaches to it. Rightly interpreted, it presupposes the exercise of a discretion at once wise and salutary; the act of dissecting and placing in proper relation the component parts of a subject. For instance, it indicates, when applied to rates, that the necessities of trade, and the equities and rights of all concerned, have been considered. Unfortunately, this, the true meaning of the word, no longer attaches to it. It has been so frequently prefixed with the adjective "unjust, that, insensibly, the people have come to attach that qualification to it. To them a discriminative rate is synonomous with an unfair one. The word has thus become misleading. Let us rejuvenate it. When a rate is spoken of as discriminatory, let us remember that it is not necessarily wrong, but that in its exercise, experience, intelligence, and due regard for the necessities of commerce and the rights of all concerned, have been duly considered. If a rate is unjust, let us call it so. Properly, a discriminatory rate is just, because intelligently made. There doubtless have been cases where it was unjust. But such cases do not constitute a rule; are not to be set off against the general good, any more than defects in particular individuals outweigh the strength of all. The marked disposition of railway critics to attach a general and exaggerated importance to particular acts, renders all they say unworthy of confidence. They manifestly lack either honesty or intelligence. If a railway manager is dishonest, let us put him in jail. But let us not handicap all railway managers because of his sin. Making discriminatory rates is not discretionary with rail. roads. It is a duty they owe the community—an obligation. This they have recognized and carried out.* For these reasons, the attempt to make it appear that the exercise of discriminatory power by railroads in making rates is injurious to the interests of the people, corrupt, unbusiness-like, or abhorrent, can not be too severely condemned. Likewise, public intelligence should condemn those who claim that carriers should enforce equal charges for * "Every step leading to the establishment of the rates that shall be charged for transportation begins and ends in the exercise of discretionary authority. Rates are never measured exclusively by the weight of the articles carried, or by the bulk, or by the cost to the carrier of transporting them, or by the value to the owner in having them transported."-Fourth Annual Report Interstate Commerce neglect any traffic of a kind that will increase its receipts more than its expenses."* Competition enforces equitable rates, and is the only guarantee we have of their maintenance. It secures the lowest possible rates (a) on the necessities of life, (b) on the comforts of life, (c) on luxuries and similar articles. It affects most favorably the poorer classes whose purchases are confined to the common necessities of life. To disturb competition, is to increase the burdens of such class, to make its struggle harder, to put the comforts of life farther and farther from its reach, to entirely deprive it of the hope of possessing a luxury. The word "discrimination," in modern railway literature and discussion, has become perverted. An improper meaning attaches to it. Rightly interpreted, it presupposes the exercise of a discretion at once wise and salutary; the act of dissecting and placing in proper relation the component parts of a subject. For instance, it indicates, when applied to rates, that the necessities of trade, and the equities and rights of all concerned, have been considered. Unfortunately, this, the true meaning of the word, no longer attaches to it. It has been so frequently prefixed with the adjective "unjust," that, insensibly, the people have come to attach that qualification to it. To them a discriminative rate is synonomous with an unfair one. The word has thus become misleading. Let us rejuvenate it. When a rate is spoken of as discriminatory, let us remember that it is not necessarily wrong, but that |