FARMERS' INSTITUTES. 327 



aud probably is true yet to a certain extent, that towns with but one line of 

 railroad, could not compete with towns in their vicinity po.ssessing two lines. 

 The result has been that towns witliout competing lines of riiilroad, could not 

 live unless they were so far from competing towns as not to feel their influ- 

 ence. The freight charges on railroads "resembles to-day nothing so much 

 as au undulating line," and one might tliink by examining their charges that 

 they could actually carry a long distance cheaper than for a short distance. 

 Thus on the Michigan Central from Detroit to Chicago the charge is a certain 

 amount per car, from Dearborn to Chicago it is very much more, but the rail- 

 road authorities will very kindly take the car from Dearborn to Chicago at 

 through rates and billed from Detroit for §15.00 extra, — the amount it would, 

 cost to get it into Detroit. This is even below local rates from Dearborn to 

 Chicago. This is a simple example of what is commonly practiced thoughout 

 the whole country. Again this excessive railroad competition has doubtless 

 led to the building of many roads which were not needed, and although they 

 may have tended to build up competing points, they have been on the whole a 

 tax on the community and have exerted a tendency to pull the whole railroad 

 system into bankruptcy. Despite the evils of railroad competition which are 

 many times greater than those of railroad combination, the cry has been con- 

 tinually for competition and against combination. Now I think that we can 

 clearly show that the railroad wars have cost Michigan (not in dollars directly) 

 more than any system of fair combination that could be devised. The ten- 

 dency of every honest combination has been not to extort money from the 

 public, but to place every town on a footing that its position and business de- 

 served, that is to carrv its freiofht at rates which bear some relation to ac- 

 tualcost; they would make each town pay for carrying its own freight, aud 

 do away with the unjust discrimination, by means of which some towns actu- 

 ally aid in paying the cost of freight from other towns, and some States 

 actually help their brethren in other States to transport their produce. It 

 is probably true that the freights would be somewhat raised at the competing 

 points, and lowered at other points, but on the whole the average price w^ould 

 be somewhat higher, in fact this average must be raised or nearly every road in 

 our State will soon change hands. (This can often be done by making through 

 freight pay its proportion of the cost.) If this is done generally it will affect 

 the consumer and not the producer; the farmers will receive just as much for 

 their produce, the railroads will get better pay and the consumer will have to 

 foot the bill. If railroad combination tends to produce extortion it will be 

 generally felt and the law can prevent it. 



As it is now, extortion in one place is offset by favoritism at another, and 

 no law can be made effectual, or in fact can be passed. As has been before 

 remarked the value of cheap rates of transportation is rather of comparative 

 than absolute kind. It does not matter so much as to what we pay as it does 

 whether we pay more or less than our neighbors. If we get cheaper rates than 

 Ohio or Wisconsin we will get higher prices for our grains, if they get cheaper 

 rates the reverse will be true. In order to see whether the State is benefited 

 or not by excessive railroad competition, we must examine the neighboring 

 States and compare them with our own. From the east, westward we find the 

 grain producing or once grain producing states to be Massachusetts, New York, 

 Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. 



Mr. Mathew Smith, a former member of the Massachusetts State Board of 

 Agriciilbnre, and a member of her last L3gislature, told me " the effect of rail- 



