One of the most distinguished and skilled traffic officials in the country, Mr. Henry Fink, in considering this amendment uses the following language:
"Railroad officials are constantly engaged in the work of adjusting rates so as to meet as far as practicable the requirement of their patrons. In times of depression of business they make reduction in rates in order to enable shippers to send their commodities to certain markets, and keep industrial establishments from being closed. These reduced rates are often so low as to barely cover the cost of transportation. But they are meant to be temporary in their operation, and to be advanced when business conditions have become more favorable.
"It must be obvious that when the restoration of such rates is obstructed, so that railroad officials are not permitted to advance rates except by permission of a government bureau after an investigation which must consume considerable time, railroad officials will naturally hesitate, and often decline, to make reductions in rates which involve considerable loss of revenue without any compensating benefits to their companies, either in the present or future.
"It is easy to see the effect of this. Railroads would no longer be able to afford the desired assistance to shippers, however anxious they might be to do so. The rates would in a large measure lose their elasticity, and become rigid, and a condition similar to that existing in France would be created, where state controlled rates prevent railroads from building up the territory."
In considering this question, we must not forget that when we destroy elasticity and flexibility in our rates, we prevent reductions of rates, as well as the raising of rates. Its tendency is not only to prevent the reduction in particular instances that has resulted in great advantage to the shippers and the country in the past, but it prevents the lowering of the general average of rates. There have been comparatively few complaints, as to the unreasonableness of the rates of this country per se. The vast majority of complaints, against the reasonableness of rates, is the claim that they are relatively unreasonable. Under the American system of rate adjustment, with its freedom to meet commercial and economic conditions, the general average of rates per ton per mile has voluntarily been reduced by the carriers of the country from 1870; not so strikingly since 1896 as previously, but substantial reduction as follows:[J]
| 1896 | 802 | | | 1902 | 757 |
| 1897 | 789 | | | 1903 | 763 |
| 1898 | 753 | | | 1904 | 780 |
| 1899 | 724 | | | 1905 | 766 |
| 1900 | 729 | | | 1906 | 748 |
| 1901 | 750 | | | 1907 | 759 |
The leaders of railroad management and the ablest experts on railroad economics in foreign countries have approved in the most enthusiastic language, the wisdom which has preserved to the American railway system its freedom of management and its flexibility of rates, subject only to the limitations of reasonable rates, equality among shippers, and the avoiding of all devices that might result in discrimination among those who use these public means of transportation.
The view of M. Emile Heurteau, president of the Orleans Railroad, speaking of the American system of roads, said:
"We would be only too glad to adopt the American system of fixing the lowest rates proper, and making up the loss of profit on each shipment out of the increased volume of business they make the railways available to, which is the only economically and commercially right and sensible way of doing. We would be glad to build up our territory as the American railways do, by encouraging its industries, by opening its markets, by enabling it to compete with other territory contributing to the same markets.