Products would go down the Mississippi after the lakes had been closed by ice. A considerable amount of corn was certainly moved to New York by that route.[398] Some device for coordination of the through and local rates—or, as one might put it, for the distribution of the localized shock of water rate changes—was imperatively necessary.
An ingenious rate clerk named MacGraham, in the offices of the Pennsylvania Railroad, proposed a comprehensive scheme for meeting these difficulties which was first used for westbound rates on December, 15, 1871. The Chicago-New York rate was to constitute a basis, upon which all other rates were to be made in percentages, according to their relative distance from New York.[399] Thus, assuming Chicago to be 900 odd miles from New York, the rate from a point 600 miles inland would be about sixty-six and two-thirds per cent. of the Chicago rate, whatever that might be. Whenever the lake rate at Chicago changed, every other rate throughout trunk line territory would vary in due proportion. Relativity of charges would thus be preserved. Moreover, the shortest route, "worked or workable," was to be used in calculating the rates, the basic distance being about 920 miles by the Lake Shore from Chicago to Dunkirk, Ohio, and thence by the Erie to New York. This would give compelling effect to distance as a factor, and would tend to penalize the roundabout carriage of goods. More than this, however, it would render the inland territory directly tributary to New York. From a point, for example, fifty or one hundred miles south of Chicago, Toledo, or Cleveland, the local rate into those towns plus the through rate east to New York would always exceed the rate by a direct route east. For the hypothenuse of a triangle is clearly always shorter than the sum of the other sides. All shipping points equidistant from New York would enjoy equal rates, those rates at any time being determined by the state of water competition. This was a manifest advantage to the small inland centres, while the rate on the lake front was not affected. The trunk lines lost something, perhaps, through lower rates at intermediate points; but the gain through diversion of traffic from the lake to the rail lines more than compensated. For conditions were such in the summer of 1875 that the lake boats were prepared to carry grain for almost nothing. The railroads were helpless in such cases.[400] The only real sufferers were the short, independent cross lines and the lake and river cities. Of these, the former were reduced to a status of mere feeders or branches of the trunk lines. They were compelled to accede to the plan, however, by threatened refusal of the trunk lines to turn over business to them westbound, unless they reciprocated with their grain shipments eastbound.[401] Many of these lines became bankrupt later, and were absorbed by the larger companies.[402] And, as for the cities unfavorably affected, the scheme based upon distance was so obviously fair that their protests were of no avail.[403]
The great contest between the trunk lines over the granting of differentials to Philadelphia and Baltimore, as against New York and Boston, played a not unimportant part in the diplomacy leading to the acceptance of the MacGraham system. The New York Central, the Lake Shore, and the Boston & Albany roads, of course eagerly accepted it, because it promised aid in meeting the lake competition to which they were peculiarly exposed. The Pennsylvania and the Erie, lying considerably further from Lake Erie, would also be benefited, operating as they did in a territory naturally tributary to them, but exposed to drainage to the lakes by lateral lines. But the Baltimore & Ohio, ever since its entry into Chicago in 1874, had been a thorn in the flesh of the others. The territory along its line was so far from the lakes that it had little to fear from water competition at intermediate points between Chicago and the seaboard. Would it accept a plan primarily intended to meet a danger which, while injuring its powerful rivals, was of less consequence to itself? Fortunately for the scheme, it was based upon the solid principle that distance was of preponderating influence in the adjustment of rates. The entire contention of the Baltimore & Ohio and the Pennsylvania for a differential rate to Baltimore and Philadelphia below New York rested upon this same principle. The distance from Chicago to the southern ports was less. Consequently, they insisted, they were entitled to offer a lower rate. The MacGraham scale and the port differentials were thus logically connected. They stood or fell together. The MacGraham plan materially aided the Baltimore & Ohio in making good its demands.[404] It was acceptable, therefore, by reason of this collateral advantage.
Another factor in the situation appealed to the Pennsylvania and the Baltimore & Ohio. Their lines to tide water were about seventy-five and one hundred miles shorter, respectively, than the shortest line to New York.[405] In the division of the joint through rate between a chain of connecting railway lines this was of great advantage. It always aids the shorter line if pro-rating is based upon mileage. A feeder one hundred miles long pro-rating with a trunk line one thousand miles in length would be entitled to only one-eleventh of the total rate. Were the trunk line only eight hundred miles long, the neutral road might claim one-ninth. This seemingly slight difference might mean several hundred thousand dollars more earnings to the neutral road or feeder, if it turned over its business to the short line.[406] Any emphasis upon distance as a general principle strengthened the Baltimore & Ohio in securing patronage from other roads by this means. The other trunk lines, through acceptance of the MacGraham scale, conceded the distance principle, and with it, coincidently, the pro-rating practice.
After three years' experience, the MacGraham scale was readjusted to conform more closely to the cost of service principle. The plan, as thus revised, is the one still in force.[407] It recognizes that railway charges should be proportioned to the length of haul, so far as actual costs of haulage are concerned; but it first eliminates those constant elements in cost which do not vary with distance. The original MacGraham scale made no such distinctions. The expenses at terminals, such as loading and unloading, are, of course, entirely independent of the distance covered by the shipment. These, being determined roughly by experimentation, are first deducted from an assumed Chicago rate. From the remainder the rate per mile by the shortest route to New York (920 miles) is then calculated by simple division. This rate per mile is then applied to the distance to any intermediate point, and the terminal charge is again added. Thus a rate is found which is reduced to a percentage of the original Chicago base rate.
For Illustration[408]
| Cents per 100 lbs. | |
|---|---|
| Chicago to New York | 25 |
| Less fixed charges on both ends of the line | 6 |
| The basis of rate for computation being the remainder, or | 19 |
| Using short line mileage 920 miles, Chicago to New York, would yield a rate per mile | 00.0206 |
| Short line mileage Indianapolis to New York, 833 miles, yields a rate of | 17.2 |
| Plus six cents fixed charges, as above, makes | 23.2 |
| The percentage of New York rate being | 93 per cent. |
| Which is the present percentage basis Indianapolis to New York | |
| Short line mileage Frankfort, Indiana, to New York is 881 miles, which would yield at the rate of 00.0206 cents per mile | 18 |
| Plus terminal charges | 6 |
| Which is 96 per cent. of 25 cents | 24 |
