Under these circumstances a dispute between the Baltimore & Ohio and the Pennsylvania in 1874 over the former’s connection with New York had far-reaching consequences.[6] The Pennsylvania refused to carry Baltimore & Ohio cars over its line north from Philadelphia, and as a retaliatory measure the Baltimore & Ohio reduced passenger fares from Washington and Baltimore to Western points from 25 to 40 per cent.[7] The reduction in rates thus begun inaugurated the first of the great railroad wars. The cuts soon extended to east-bound passengers and to freight, and forced corresponding cuts on the Pennsylvania, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, the Michigan Central, the New York Central, and the Erie. Rates on fourth class and grain from Chicago to New York, which had been 60 cents per 100 pounds in December, 1873, and 40 cents in December, 1874, fell to 30 cents in March, 1875. Rates on special, or sixth class,[8] went as low as 12 cents from Baltimore and Philadelphia to Chicago. Passenger fares from Chicago to Baltimore and Washington were reduced from $19 to $9, to Philadelphia from $19 to $12, to New York from $22 to $15, and to Boston from $22 to $15. The New York Central and the Erie quoted fares from New York to Chicago of $18 and to St. Louis of $20, and the Baltimore & Ohio replied by a cut to $16.25 to Chicago. In April, 1875, the Baltimore & Ohio cut freight rates from Cumberland to Baltimore over 50 per cent on the four regular classes, and the Pennsylvania at once announced still greater reductions.[9]
The effect of this warfare on railroad revenues was sufficiently serious to cause the Baltimore & Ohio to recede somewhat from its independent position and to enter into negotiations with the Pennsylvania;[10] but the terms of the resulting agreement proved unsatisfactory to the other trunk lines, and no general pacification was obtained. Late in 1875 rates nevertheless generally advanced, and in December a general agreement was concluded, followed by a general increase. This agreement was again hopelessly disrupted by the following April, when cuts in east-bound rates followed each other with rapidity. The published rates on grain, which had been 45 cents at the beginning of March, 1876, fell to 40 cents on March 7, 35 cents on April 13, 22½ cents on April 25, and 20 cents on May 5. In June rates on west-bound freight fell to 25 cents first class to Chicago, and 16 cents fourth and fifth class, actual rates going much lower; and it was possible to travel from New York to Chicago first class for $13.[11]
Warfare between railroads became intensified by the competition between the cities which the railroads served, and by 1876 the question of relative rates to New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore had grown to be of primary importance.[12] By an agreement in 1869 Baltimore had been given a differential on east-bound freight of 10 cents per 100 pounds, which had been reduced to 5 cents on grain in 1870. On west-bound freight Baltimore had enjoyed a differential in 1875 which had ranged from 10 cents on first class to 5 cents on special class freight, and Philadelphia one which had been 2 cents less except on first class, where the Philadelphia differential had been 3 cents less than that to Baltimore. A temporary agreement of March, 1876, had replaced these allowances by differentials of 13 per cent in favor of Baltimore and 10 per cent in favor of Philadelphia as against New York. This relation was fought over in the rate war of 1876. In December of that year another agreement was reached on the basis of equal rates from Western points to Europe on export traffic via all four competing seaboard cities, and reduced percentage differentials on local traffic to those cities; but this proved temporary, the subsequent advances in rates were not general, and final agreement was not secured until April, 1877. The contract then executed was in the nature of a compromise. The differential to Baltimore was reduced from 13 per cent to 3 cents, and from Philadelphia from 10 per cent to 2 cents, to apply equally to local and to export traffic. Rates to Boston were at no time to be less than those to New York. Differentials on west-bound traffic were to be the same as those on east-bound on third class, fourth class, and special freight, and on first and second classes to be 8 cents less per hundred from Baltimore and 6 cents less from Philadelphia than from New York.[13]
The years following the agreement of 1877 were marked by low and fluctuating rates, extensive cutting under the published schedules, and frequent attempts at pooling and at apportionment of traffic. At a meeting at Chicago on December 19, 1878, tariff rates were agreed upon by all lines, but the existence of time contracts depressed receipts for months thereafter. Another meeting on May 8 was followed by sharp competition. In June an agreement to raise rates was made, but proved unsatisfactory owing to long time contracts. “During the period between December 18, 1878, and July 5, 1879,” said Mr. King in a letter to the Trunk-Line Arbitrators on July 17, 1879, “the Baltimore & Ohio Company has practically been out of the market, on account of the low rates by the Northern lines. It has not secured enough east-bound freight to give return loads for the small west-bound traffic sent over its lines to that city, and has repeatedly moved its cars empty from Chicago to other points on its lines east of that city.”[14]
Early in 1881 the cutting of rates became sufficiently important to force official recognition by the chairman of the trunk-line pool.[15] By June 17 quoted rates on grain were 15 cents per 100 pounds from Chicago to New York, and a railroad war was in full swing.[16] By October the grain rate had been reduced from 15 cents to 12½ cents; by August passenger fares were $7 from New York to Chicago, and $16 from Chicago to New York, and there was quoted besides a $5 Boston to Chicago rate over the Grand Trunk. The radical nature of these cuts can be appreciated from Mr. Albert Fink’s testimony before the Hepburn and Cullom Committees. Fifteen cents, said he in 1879, just covered the actual cost of hauling the grain;[17] twenty cents, he asserted in 1885, was the bare cost of movement, including the general expenses, but without any profit to the road.[18] Grain was therefore not repaying the specific cost of hauling, and passengers were obviously in similar case. Temporary relief occurred through the large increase in business which took place at the end of 1881. In October the Pennsylvania and the Baltimore & Ohio advanced east-bound rates because of the abundance of traffic offering, and the New York Central, Erie, and Grand Trunk followed to a less degree. In November further advances occurred, though west-bound rates remained low; but throughout December and January rates were low and fluctuating,[19] and negotiations were carried on for the settlement of the differential question which underlay the trouble. None of the combatants were open to conviction; the only outlet was therefore arbitration, and this was reluctantly resorted to.[20] In January, 1882, the roads divided the through trunk-line business, agreed to raise rates, and left the subject of differentials to be investigated by Messrs. Thurman, Washburn, and Cooley.[21]
This solution settled nothing. During the following three years constant disputes arose over the proper division of traffic,[22] and in 1884 the old struggle was resumed with unabated vigor. Rates on grain to the seaboard fell from 30 cents to 20 cents on March 14 of that year, and to 15 cents on March 21; remaining low and fluctuating through the year.[23] Immigrant business from New York to Chicago was handled by the Pennsylvania at one dollar a head. By February, 1885, rates for traffic in both directions were completely demoralized. Nominal east-bound charges on grain were 25 cents, or a 10 cent advance since the preceding March, but actual rates were as low as 8 and 10 cents. Meanwhile published rates on west-bound freight were a third less than the standard tariff, and passenger rates in both directions were, roughly, one-half the regular charges. The following month still further reductions occurred. The warfare was finally terminated by an agreement to maintain rates late in 1885,[24] followed by an elaborate pooling agreement between the competing lines.[25]
From 1875 to 1885 the trunk lines to the Atlantic ports were thus engaged in active competition. What was the effect of this upon the Baltimore & Ohio? This road was highly prosperous in 1875. Dividends of 6 per cent and 10 per cent were being paid. The capitalization was small, and the management conservative. During the ten years following 1875 the rate of dividend was not materially decreased. In 1876 10 per cent was paid. In 1877 the old 8 per cent rate was restored, and the following year the distribution was made in stock instead of in cash. After the agreement of 1878 one-half year’s dividend was paid in cash; and in 1879 9 per cent cash, and in 1880 10 per cent cash was declared, this rate enduring until 1886. But although dividends were maintained, the effect of the railroad wars appeared in the slowness with which net earnings increased. A comparison of the net returns of 1884 with those of 1874 reveals a gain of 40 per cent, on a mileage 27 per cent greater; but the figures for 1885 show an increase of less than 2 per cent over those for 1874, while the totals for 1884 were not again equalled until 1900. Meanwhile more bonds had been issued, and the percentage of fixed charges to net earnings had increased from 16 in 1874 to 63 in 1884. In other words, money was borrowed to put into the road which did little more than keep the net earnings from declining. In that same time the stock increased $2,900,000, and according to the profit and loss account $15,559,636 were put into the property, making a total of $55,743,092 (of this $37,197,696 were bonds); the only result of which was the building of 313 miles of line, and the securing of an increase in net earnings for 1884, which was swept away the following year.
In 1884 the elder Garrett died, and his son Robert was elected to succeed him. The old policy of independence and competition was continued, the objective point being now an entrance into New York. “When in 1885 the other trunk lines harmonized their differences, ...” said the Chronicle, “the Baltimore & Ohio ... pursued its policy of aggression.... The road must reach Philadelphia ... nay, must push ... on to New York.... Instead of seeking to avoid rivalry, its every effort seemed to encourage it. Rates were reduced, concessions made to shippers and travellers, the one idea apparently being to get traffic no matter what the cost.”[26] The necessity of a secure New York connection had been impressed upon the company in the course of the rate wars. The first step was to be actual construction to Philadelphia, the second, construction or traffic agreements from Philadelphia to New York. Bonds were issued in April, 1883, for construction of a so-called Philadelphia branch from Baltimore to the northern boundary of Cecil County, Maryland,[27] there to connect with the Baltimore & Philadelphia Railroad, which was being built through Delaware and Pennsylvania to Philadelphia. Entrance into Philadelphia was secured over the Schuylkill River East Side Railway, a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania and doing business in the city only.[28] The distance was approximately ninety-nine miles; the cost was later asserted to have been $20,000,000. Beyond Philadelphia the Baltimore & Ohio relied on an agreement with the Philadelphia & Reading for trackage to Bound Brook, New Jersey,[29] and on a traffic contract with the Central of New Jersey for its line from Bound Brook to Elizabeth.[30] Terminals on Staten Island were secured by purchase of a controlling interest in the Staten Island Rapid Transit Company,[31] and connection between Elizabeth and the Island was obtained by new construction. The strength of this route was in its directness and in its independence of trunk-line control; its weakness was in its excessive cost between Baltimore and Philadelphia, and in its reliance upon traffic contracts north of the latter city. A proposition was advanced to unite the Baltimore & Ohio, the Philadelphia & Reading, and the Central of New Jersey with the Richmond Terminal System. This, however, fell through,[32] and the possibility still existed that the Baltimore & Ohio might some day construct a line of its own from Philadelphia to New York.
Pending the completion of the preceding arrangements rate conditions remained naturally unsatisfactory. The Pennsylvania objected to the paralleling of its Philadelphia-New York branch, and refused to allow temporary use of that line by the Baltimore & Ohio while the latter’s independent connections were being established.[33] Freight rates were slowly and painfully raised after the conflict of 1884–5, and did not regain a high level. In 1886 the Baltimore & Ohio was forced to reduce its dividends from 10 to 8 per cent. The following year it cut to 4 per cent, and in 1888 no dividend at all was declared. The surplus on the year’s operations, which had not since 1878 fallen below $1,000,000, dropped to $110,819 in 1885, and to $36,259 in 1886. As dividends decreased, the funded debt increased,[34] the percentage of fixed charges to net income rose from 63 to 89, and the floating debt attained the portentous amount of $11,148,007. The only item which did not grow was net earnings. There was nothing occult in the situation. Every one was well aware that the competition to which the Baltimore & Ohio had been subjected had been severe, and that the cost of its New York extension had been large. In 1887 the bonds outstanding were $56,868,201, the stock $19,792,566, and the accumulated surplus $48,083,720, or a total of $124,744,487. This stood for the sums invested in the property. Net income on the other hand was $4,994,721; so that on an investment of over $100,000,000 but 4 per cent was being obtained to cover interest, improvements, and whatever dividend might be declared.
That no general apprehension was felt by investors before 1887 was due to the great prestige which the Baltimore & Ohio enjoyed. The long series of dividends counted heavily in favor of the road. The enormous accumulated surplus, said to have been invested in valuable improvements and extensions;[35] the enterprise of the company in making extensions; the large volume of business; and the confident statements of the president, all conspired to prevent a too keen analysis of the business returns.[36] Relief of two sorts was nevertheless required. In the first place the floating debt had grown so large that some means of paying it off was necessary; in the second place the road needed a sufficient reduction in fixed charges to restore some of the margin of non-mortgaged earnings which had been so great a safeguard in the early days. Only the first of these requirements was met. Cash the road had to have; the existing fixed charges, it was thought, it could endure if only some abatement of the intensity of trunk-line competition could be obtained.