This statement, even if correct, is certainly misleading. No allowance is made for the greater distances and the greater average haul in America, and none for our bulky raw products, which require more car room than the manufactured goods predominating as freight in Europe.
If Mr. Hadley's statement of miles run by trains annually is used in connection with Mr. Poor's statement showing the length, for 1889, of the railroads of the countries given in the above table, it can be shown that the average number of trains run annually per mile is considerably less here than in Europe:
| Countries. | Length of Railroad in miles (1889). | Miles run by Trains annually. | Average Number of Trains per mile per annum. |
| United States | 161,396 | 724,000,000 | 4,485 |
| Great Britain | 19,930 | 303,000,000 | 15,203 |
| Germany | 25,360 | 181,000,000 | 7,137 |
| France | 21,910 | 145,000,000 | 6,618 |
| Austria-Hungary | 15,990 | 66,000,000 | 4,127 |
It is seen that while the average number of trains run per mile per annum is only 4,485 in the United States, it is 6,618 in France, 7,137 in Germany, and 15,203 in Great Britain. In Austria-Hungary it is somewhat less than here. It is not claimed that this is in every respect a fair argument; but it is at least as fair as Mr. Hadley's. As has been stated before, the average earnings per train mile are larger in the United States than in most nations, and, excepting Sweden, railway capital has the highest gross earnings of any nation in the world; and when Mr. Hadley bases his argument in favor of higher rates for American railroads than for those of Europe upon the claim that the latter secure larger train loads, he simply reasons from false premises.
Mr. Hadley then continues:
"But why cannot our railroad men, with our present train service, secure larger loads by making lower rates, and give us cheap service as well as plenty of it? Why cannot we secure two good things instead of one? For two reasons: First, because it is not certain that low rates will be followed by greatly increased travel; second, because such increased travel would not be so economical to handle in America as it is in Europe. It is wrong to assume that, because reductions of charges in Europe have increased travel enormously, they would have a proportionate effect in America and a corresponding advantage in American railroad economy. It is a somewhat significant fact that second-class trains at reduced rates have been extremely successful in Europe and not at all so in America. Other things being equal, the American public would be glad to have its travel at lower fares; but it cares more for comfort and speed, and for being able to travel at its own times, than for a slight difference in charge. The assumption so frequently made, that a reduction in fares would cause an enormous increase in travel in this country, is for the most part a pure assumption, not borne out by the facts."
The great increase in business which has everywhere followed reductions in postage rates, telegraph rates and street-car fares, as well as railroad rates, sufficiently refutes the assertion that it is not certain that low rates would be followed by greatly increased travel. If the second class has not been as successful here as in Europe this is solely due to the fact that the American railroad companies have systematically discouraged second-class travel by forcing passengers into filthy and over-crowded cars. The statement that increased travel would not be so economical to handle in America as in Europe scarcely needs a reply. If, as Prof. Hadley says, the American public demand more frequent trains than the people of Europe, and if these frequent trains are not at present profitable to our railroad companies, it would seem to be plainly to their interest to hold out every inducement to the public to increase travel and thus fill their trains.
Mr. Hadley does not aid his argument when, referring to the Hungarian zone system, he says: "The importance of the zone system in Austria and in Hungary lies in the fact that its adoption was accompanied by a great reduction in rates. The unit rate for slow, third-class trains, which had previously been nearly a cent and a half a mile, was reduced to less than one cent.... The use of railroads under the new system, though vastly greater than it was before, is vastly less than that of a well-managed American road at American rates." Mr. Hadley inadvertently presents here one of the very best reasons why our passenger rates should be reduced.
The fact is, railroad men are opposed, and always have been opposed, to reduction of rates, and to all progressive movements that require increased expenditures or threaten to temporarily reduce their revenues. When the introduction of the zone system was first advocated in Hungary it was opposed by just such men and just such arguments.
No one can contradict the following facts, viz.: That the average cost of European roads is much greater than that of American roads; that the number of railroad employes per mile is much greater there than here; that much larger sums are expended for repairing and improving the roads, and that therefore the lives of passengers are much safer in Europe than in America; and that the average speed and corresponding accommodations of European trains, and especially those of England, Germany, France and Austria-Hungary, compare quite favorably with the average speed and corresponding accommodations of our roads. It is, under these circumstances, absurd to claim that the higher prices charged by American roads are due to the greater cost of service.