And what is the situation as this is written? It can be stated in a few lines. As a consequence of the drop of $300,000,000 in gross earnings in 1908, the railways in 1908 and 1909 cut $277,000,000 out of their expenditures. This was done mainly at the expense of maintenance of way and structures and in a cessation in the purchase of equipment, but the so-called economies of postponed expenditures permeated every line of railway extension, operation and replacement. In 1908, with 6,000 more miles of track to maintain, $18,788,217 less was spent for maintenance than in 1907, and in 1909 with 12,000 more miles of track $32,176,824 less was expended.
Between 1897 and 1907 the expenditures for maintenance of way increased from $159,434,403 to $343,544,907, or over 115%. This means an increase of approximately 8% a year, or at least $25,000,000 on present plant. Therefore at least $43,000,000 was withheld from this essential line of railway maintenance in 1908 and fully $82,000,000 in 1909, a total of $125,000,000. The saving on equipment was nearly as great and is dealt with in the body of the report.
A comparison of the income accounts for the month of October, 1907 and 1908, corroborates the foregoing statement as to the economies forced on the railways by the adverse winds of regulation and business depression.
| Month of October | 1907 | 1909 |
| Earnings from operation | $250,575,757 | $260,613,053 |
| Operating expenses | 166,999,266 | 156,628,513 |
| Net earnings | $ 83,576,491 | $113,984,540 |
| Operating ratio | 66.64 | 60.10 |
The canker worm in this, the most promising flower of returning prosperity, is revealed in the abnormal ratio of 60.10 for October, 1909, or nearly 7% below the American average. Now this 7% on the revenues of last October means that in some way over $16,000,000 less than normal was expended on American railways in that month alone. And October, 1909, was only a sample of how railways had cut expenses for 24 consecutive months.
That this should be so, with no reduction in the scale of wages or the price of supplies, is, in the view of the writer, a situation of serious national concern. Happily he is not charged with any commission to suggest how or where the deferred debt of nearly $300,000,000 to efficient railway road and equipment is to be met. But that it must be met, to place the railways in as good condition as they were before the panic of 1907, when the cry was for more, not less facilities, does not admit of question. If it, together with the advance in wages now being adjusted, is to be met out of income, only an advance in freight rates can take care of it. If out of fresh capital, it can only be coaxed from the pockets of shrewd investors by rates of interest that discount the risk attendant on the unregulated and irresponsible regulation of railway revenues, resources and responsibilities. And it is proposed to make an irresponsible Commission, unfamiliar with the necessities of the situation and unversed in the ways and means of raising capital arbiters of these necessities, ways and means.
All attempts to meet such a situation by legislation, unless it be directed to a reform of the instrumentalities of regulation, must prove ineffectual. In a broader, saner, more helpful administration of the laws already on the federal and state statute books lies the hope for the future of the great American transportation industry. "Whate'er is best administered is best."
The Bureau's Statistics for 1909.
Thus far what has been written has related almost wholly to the financial aspect of the transportation industry as presented through the monthly reports of the railways. While these in their way serve as an admirable barometer in keeping the public informed as to general business conditions throughout the Union, they throw little light upon the railway operations behind the financial results. They are absolutely dumb on the main question upon which all railway legislation and regulation should hinge—adequate and efficient public service.
In the following pages the Bureau attempts to remedy this omission, in the essential particulars for the year ending June 30, 1909. The reports from which its summaries have been compiled were received almost a month earlier this year than last, but the publication of the Bureau's statistics has been delayed in order to make the usual comparisons with the Official Statistics for 1908. The writer is advised from Washington that the fault for this unusual delay rests with the Government printer—whose office is overwhelmed with Congressional and departmental work—and not with the Interstate Commerce Commission or its Bureau of Statistics and Accounts.