"It operates in practice to affect a distribution of the traffic somewhat roughly, giving rise to frequent dissensions and bickerings over the 'differentials' which are allowed; but after all it has enabled the trunk lines usually to secure a better maintenance of tariff rates and a better observance of the provisions of the law against private rebates and discriminations than has been attainable in other sections of the country where different conditions make such an arrangement impracticable. It vividly illustrates, however, the necessity of some plan by which common business may be divided."
This problem, which apparently causes so much perplexity to railroad managers, would soon be solved if railroad abuses were done away with. So long as these abuses exist and rates are maintained by artificial means there will be bickering and strife for business which legitimately belongs to others. Mr. Walker then bewails the proscription of the pool, saying:
"It may be stated without fear of contradiction that if the carriers had been left free to make arrangements among themselves upon which each line might rely for eventually receiving in some form a fair share of competitive traffic, the temptation for secret rate-cutting would have been in great measure removed and the country would have been spared most of the traffic disturbances and illegitimate contrivances for buying business which have since been periodically rife."
This argument amounts to this, that, rather than place a law upon our statute books which reckless railroad managers might be strongly tempted to violate, they should be permitted to combine and control the highways and levy ad libitum upon the commerce of the country. It is a most preposterous proposition.
The article especially condemns the long and short haul clause of the law. That this clause is injurious to the commerce of the country is, however, not obvious from his reasoning. Mr. Walker makes the statement that this clause of the law "has removed from many jobbing centers important advantages which they previously had, and has enabled interior communities, formerly of little apparent consequence, to deal directly with distant markets." If he means by this that this feature of the law has equalized shipping throughout the country, he is doubtless right. If he wishes us to infer, however, that it prevents the railroad companies from doing substantial justice to all, he presumes altogether too much upon the credulity of his readers.
Another article from the same author appeared under the title "Unregulated Competition Self-destructive," in the December, 1891, number of the same periodical. He commences his article with an inquiry into the pedigree and merit of the time-honored proverb, "Competition is the life of trade," and arrives at the conclusion that the phrase is fatherless and insignificant. He says:
"'Competition is the life of trade;' 'Competition is the death of trade;' one phrase is as true as the other. For all that appears, it was a toss-up which of the two should become current as the expression of the general thought."
It is its general recognition that gives a truth a proverb's currency. Mr. Walker sneers at a disagreeable proverb because, like the majority of his colleagues, he holds the masses in contempt. He gives his estimate of popular intelligence in the following words:
"Unfortunately most men do not think worthily, or do not think at all; they are ruled by phrases, and they catch the crude ideas of others as they fly."
Mr. Walker's whole argument is one in favor of the legalization of the pool, though he carefully avoids the word which grates so harshly on the American ear. He makes the broad statement, without offering the least proof in support of it, that measures have been everywhere adopted "to subdue and ameliorate the evil results of inordinate and excessive competitive strife," and then he asks: