| Increased power | |||||
| Prices. | to purchase | ||||
| railway | |||||
| January 1, | January 1, | January 1, | Increase | freight services | |
| 1908. | 1897. | 1908. | per cent. | per cent. | |
| Horses | $1,867,530,000 | $31.51 | $ 93.41 | 196.45 | 211.69 |
| Mules | 416,939,000 | 41.66 | 107.76 | 158.67 | 171.97 |
| Milch cows | 650,057,000 | 23.16 | 30.67 | 32.43 | 39.24 |
| Cattle, except milch cows | 845,938,000 | 16.65 | 16.89 | 1.44 | 6.65 |
| Sheep | 211,736,000 | 1.82 | 3.88 | 113.19 | 124.15 |
| Swine | 339,030,000 | 4.10 | 6.05 | 47.56 | 55.14 |
| ——————— | —— | ——— | ——— | ——— | |
| Total | $4,331,230,000 | — | — | — | — |
In considering the foregoing the fact that the prices relate solely to animals on farms should be borne in mind. They are doubtless somewhat lower than for animals elsewhere located, but prices of the latter have probably moved in the same direction and in about the same extent.[H]
RAILWAY RATES IN 1897 AND AT PRESENT MEASURED IN MONEY.
Throughout the foregoing discussion reference has frequently been made to what has been assumed to be a typical shipment, that is, a fifteen-ton carload of fourth class freight transported between Chicago and New York. The typical service rendered in moving this shipment would have brought the railways gross receipts of $105.00, in 1897 or in any of the intermediate years, and would bring the same amount now. The period in question, however, has witnessed many thousands of changes in railway rates on particular commodities and between particular points, and, confining the discussion for the present to the mere expression of rates in terms of money, it is necessary to inquire whether the general level of all rates has been raised or lowered and how far the change, if any is discovered, has gone in either direction. Now, it is manifestly impossible to correlate all rates in a single tabulation, and, giving to each its proper weight in the determination of a final average, thus establish definitely and with complete precision the relation between the money rates of 1897 and those at the present time. The number of different articles shipped and the great number of different points at which each article may enter into the aggregate of traffic movement or to which it may be destined, as well as the elusive character of the factors which would indicate the relative weight properly to be allowed to each separate rate, wholly preclude the adoption of such a method. Fortunately, however, American railway accountants long ago adopted a measure of traffic movement, which was later officially sanctioned by its adoption for the same purpose by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and which, when compared with the gross receipts from freight service, results in an average that throws great light upon the movement or absence of movement in the general level of the rates charged. When the weight of any shipment, expressed in tons, is multiplied by the distance which it is carried, expressed in miles, the resulting product gives a measure of the service performed, in units which are designated as "ton-miles." When the ton-miles (or ton-mileage) of all shipments are aggregated the total represents the sum of all services. The result of dividing the revenue from a particular shipment by its ton-mileage is the average rate per ton per mile for that shipment and if the sum representing the aggregate gross receipts from all railway freight services is divided by the aggregate ton-mileage of those services the quotient obtained is the average ton-mile rate for all services. During the period from 1897 to 1907 these data have been compiled annually by the Interstate Commerce Commission under the direction of Professor Henry C. Adams, its statistician. The average rates thus established are given both for the United States as a whole and for each of ten districts or groups. The following table shows these averages as they are given in the successive annual statistical reports of the Commission:
| TABLE LEGEND | |
| REGION: | |
| A == | Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. |
| B == | New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, New York, east of Buffalo, Pennsylvania, east of Pittsburgh, West Virginia, North of Parkersburg. |
| C == | New York, west of Buffalo, Pennsylvania, west of Pittsburgh, Michigan, lower Peninsula, Ohio, Indiana. |
| D == | West Virginia, south of Parkersburg, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. |
| E == | Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, east of Mississippi River. |
| F == | Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, north of St. Louis and Kansas City, South and North Dakota, east of Missouri river, Michigan, upper Peninsula. |
| G == | Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota, east of Missouri River, Colorado, north of Denver. |
| H == | Arkansas, Indian Territory, Oklahoma Territory, Kansas, Colorado, south of Denver, Texas, Panhandle, New Mexico, north of Santa Fe. |
| I == | Texas, except Panhandle, Louisiana, west of Mississippi River, New Mexico, north of Santa Fe. |
| J == | Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, western portion. |
| Year and average rate in mills per ton per mile. | |||||||||||||
| Group. | Region. | 1897 | 1898 | 1899 | 1900 | 1901 | 1902 | 1903 | 1904 | 1905 | 1906 | 1907 | 1908(a) |
| I. | A | 12.02 | 11.76 | 11.23 | 11.52 | 11.51 | 11.72 | 11.67 | 11.96 | 11.79 | 11.72 | 11.45 | 11.10 |
| II. | B | 6.75 | 6.17 | 5.82 | 6.13 | 6.46 | 6.64 | 6.67 | 6.86 | 6.65 | 6.50 | 6.55 | 6.43 |
| III. | C | 6.05 | 5.78 | 5.29 | 5.46 | 5.68 | 5.76 | 6.07 | 6.20 | 6.07 | 5.94 | 5.98 | 5.94 |
| IV. | D | 6.48 | 5.92 | 5.94 | 5.95 | 6.41 | 6.50 | 7.14 | 7.16 | 6.91 | 6.90 | 7.03 | 6.96 |
| V. | E | 8.64 | 8.35 | 8.07 | 8.08 | 8.02 | 8.16 | 8.27 | 8.51 | 8.39 | 8.13 | 8.27 | 8.25 |
| VI. | F | 8.55 | 8.26 | 8.21 | 8.06 | 7.89 | 7.87 | 7.74 | 7.79 | 7.66 | 7.45 | 7.43 | 7.35 |
| VII. | G | 11.48 | 11.57 | 11.01 | 10.64 | 10.43 | 9.94 | 9.80 | 9.64 | 9.00 | 8.94 | 9.33 | 9.42 |
| VIII. | H | 10.79 | 9.61 | 9.68 | 9.64 | 9.71 | 9.78 | 9.62 | 9.98 | 9.88 | 9.47 | 9.66 | 9.53 |
| IX. | I | 10.40 | 10.42 | 10.65 | 9.38 | 10.18 | 9.84 | 9.74 | 10.00 | 10.96 | 10.09 | 10.51 | 10.02 |
| X. | J | 12.75 | 11.46 | 11.36 | 10.67 | 10.55 | 10.37 | 10.05 | 10.36 | 10.98 | 11.03 | 11.63 | 12.04 |
| United States | 7.98 | 7.53 | 7.24 | 7.29 | 7.50 | 7.57 | 7.63 | 7.80 | 7.66 | 7.48 | 7.59 | 7.5 | |
| (a) Average for 1908 added from 21st annual Report of Prof. Adams. S. T. | |||||||||||||
The foregoing shows that the average rates per ton per mile, expressed in money, were lower in every group but one, as well as in the whole country, in 1907 than they were in 1897. The average for the whole country was lower in 1907 than in any other year shown except the years 1898 to 1902, inclusive, and for three of those years the difference was less than one-tenth of one mill. The decrease in the general average from 1897 to 1907 was 4.89 per cent. and the increase from 1899, the year of the lowest average, was 4.83 per cent.
So far as the quality of the ton-mile unit is affected by changes in the geographical distribution of traffic the tendency between 1897 and 1907 was toward a higher quality, for traffic movement grew more rapidly in the regions where rates are normally higher than it did in the regions of lower rates. In the following statement the groups used by the Interstate Commerce Commission are arranged with the group in which ton-mileage increased most rapidly from 1897 to 1907 at the top, the group that increased next most rapidly in the second line, and so on to the group that increased least rapidly at the bottom: