Even so important a city as Philadelphia has had serious complaints to make at times of the favoritism shown New York by sending many of the best trains from Washington north through Philadelphia without running into Broad Street Station, but stopping only at West Philadelphia, and by arranging excursion tickets so that southern buyers would go to New York instead of Philadelphia.[[323]]
In June, 1905, the New Haven and Hartford notified connecting lines that it would not receive any further shipments of coal for delivery east of the Connecticut River or north of Hartford after August 31. Such an order constitutes a compound discrimination against certain localities and a specific commodity.
The whole of New England suffers from a discrimination of about 100 percent in freight rates, the average rate in New England being about double the average for the United States. Quoting my testimony before the United States Industrial Commission: “Another phase of discrimination was brought out very prominently in our studies in New England, and the best source of information, perhaps, is the report made by the Massachusetts Railroad Commission a few years ago (1894), in which they compared the average freight rate on New England roads, individual roads, and the average of all the roads there, showing that our rates were about double the average freight rate in the Middle States, or in the Middle West, and that it was clearly double what the average freight rate was for the whole United States, and they argued with much force that it was really a discrimination against New England as a whole, especially against Boston. One of the pleas put forward in discussing the question of leasing the Boston and Albany was that the giving over of the Boston and Albany to the New York Central control would intensify instead of relieve that sectional discrimination against New England as a whole, because the road would come under the control of those interested chiefly in the development of New York City, and not in the development of Boston and the New England States.”[[324]]
In the Cincinnati Maximum Rate Case, involving a large number of railways and steamship lines, the Commission found discrimination between the rates from the eastern seaboard and central territory to southern points, and fixed a schedule of maximum rates from Cincinnati and Chicago to Knoxville, Chattanooga, Rome, Atlanta, Meridian, Birmingham, Anniston, and Selma, and required the railroads to revise their rates to other points in the South in conformity with the provisions of the order.[[325]] On appeal to the Supreme Court it was held that the order could not be enforced against the railroads, it being the opinion of the majority of the court that the Interstate Act does not give the Commission power to fix rates, such power not being expressly conferred and being too great to be implied from the prohibition of unreasonable rates and the general authority given the Commission to enforce the law,[[326]] so that the discrimination the Commission sought to abolish between different sections of the country is still in operation.
Sectional discrimination, either intentional or unintentional, is bad enough, but there is a still wider and more objectionable form of discrimination as between the country and the big cities. The whole inland territory is made tributary to a few competing points.
As Hadley says: “The points where there is no competition are made to pay the fixed charges.”[[327]] The railroads make whatever rates are necessary to get business on the through routes, and compel the rural districts to pay rates high enough to make up for the low rates on through traffic. In many cases local rates in country districts are almost as high as they were in the old stage-coach days. Senator Dolliver suggests that every village and interior community in the United States has a grievance against the railways on account of discrimination against them in favor of the large centres.[[328]] Every small town, and every small shipper and every farmer has to pay tribute to the big cities. The effect is to build up the cities in wealth and population at the expense of the country. For example, while Indianapolis increased by 32,389 inhabitants from 1880 to 1890, 49 counties remained stationary, and 21 counties lost. So Detroit grew greatly, while 20 counties in the State, nearly all the counties in Southern Michigan, lost population. “It is manifest that the railroads are greatly aiding the cities in drawing to themselves the best and the worst from the country, and every moment are increasing the magnitude of the municipal problem.”[[329]]
Mr. Alexander says that the railways should have credit for decreasing the discriminations made by nature. “Thirty years ago it cost over a dollar a pound to carry from New York machinery and tools to work the mines of Utah, and the trip consumed the whole summer, during which the purchaser lost the use of his money. Now the trip requires but two weeks or less, and the rate is about two cents. Comparing these rates, and considering the character of the present service as compared with the old, it is not an exaggeration to say that the railroads have removed about ninety-nine one-hundredths of the discrimination against Utah which nature ordained in surrounding her with deserts and mountains.”[[330]]
It is true that the railways have greatly reduced the obstacles of nature, but it is also true that they have used their power of reduction unequally, arbitrarily, and unjustly. The discriminations of nature have not the quality of justice or injustice that attaches to discrimination by human agencies. In the exercise of the function of removing the difficulties of nature the common carrier must be impartial.
CHAPTER XXIX.
NULLIFYING THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF.
The railroads continue to nullify the protective tariff upon imports, and erect a counter protective tariff of their own in favor of foreign goods and against domestic manufactures, aiming to supply home markets, while on the other hand they facilitate the export of our productions by rates much lower than the charges on the same goods for the same haul when intended for domestic consumption. The effort seems to enable our producers to capture foreign markets, and to give our markets, especially the transcontinental markets, to foreign shippers. Anything to get business, long hauls, ton-miles.