Those who live in the most remote rural communities have a vital interest in the nation's transportation system, including railways and steamship lines. As we have seen (p. 203), there was the closest relation between the building of railroads and the opening of the public lands. The market of the farmer and the source of his supplies are not merely the neighboring trading center, but in far distant parts of the country and of the world. Without railroads, the farmer, the manufacturer, and the city merchant would alike be helpless.

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF RAILROADS

While our government has at times given direct aid to encourage the building of railroads, as by the gift of public lands, they have been developed chiefly by private enterprise. They are owned by private corporations which do business under charters granted by the state governments (rarely by the national government) and regulated by law. Control over them has been exercised chiefly by the state governments, except in matters affecting interstate commerce, which falls under the control of Congress. As the parts of our country have become more closely bound together and interdependent, largely by the influence of the railroads themselves, an increasingly large part of commerce has become "interstate" in character, and railway transportation has become more and more a national concern. The result is an increasing control by the national government

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

In 1887, Congress created an Interstate Commerce Commission with power to inquire into the management of the business of "common carriers," such as railroads, steamship lines, and express companies. It was later given power to fix rates which such carriers could charge. Other laws were passed, such as the Sherman Act, or "Anti-Trust Law," of 1890, which made unlawful any "contract, combination … or conspiracy in restraint of trade." These and other laws checked abuses that characterized railroad management at that time, but, on the other hand, they are said in some respects to have hampered the economic and efficient development of the country's transportation system. The Sherman Law, for example, absolutely forbade the consolidation of competing railroad lines under one management, although such consolidation often makes for efficiency and economy.

GOVERNMENT RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION IN WAR

When the United States entered the recent war, the weakness of our transportation system quickly became apparent, and the need for the most effective transportation service led the government to take unusual steps to secure it. The President issued a proclamation by which, in the exercise of his WAR POWERS, he "took possession and assumed control of each and every system of transportation in the United States and the appurtenances thereof." This meant assuming control over 397,000 miles of railways owned by 2905 corporations and employing more than 1,700,000 persons. The management of this great transportation system was intrusted to a Railroad Administration with a Director General of Railroads at its head. The ownership of these railroads, however, remained with the private companies, which were to receive compensation for the use of their property, and were to receive back the railroads after the war was over.

ADVANTAGES OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT

The whole purpose of the government in its management of the railroads was to win the war, the convenience of the public being a minor consideration. The people cheerfully put up with inconveniences of travel and with rates that they had not experienced while the roads were under private management. On the other hand, there were certain decided advantages in the management of all railroads as one great system. It meant the consolidation of competing lines that the law itself prevented the railway companies from effecting, it meant shortening routes in many cases, the use of common freight terminals by different lines, the increase of track facilities and storage areas at seaport terminals, the selling of passenger tickets good over any one of several roads running between two points.

There are those who believe that the railroads should be managed, or even owned, by the government in time of peace as well as during war. There are others who believe as strongly in private ownership and direction. Many of the latter believe, however, that a more perfect control should be exercised over the privately owned roads by the government under laws that protect the interests of the public and that at the same time permit, or even require, greater cooperation among the roads than has heretofore existed. Since the war, bills have been introduced in Congress looking to these ends, and doubtless the experience of the war will result in an appreciable improvement in our country's railway transportation system.