PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



723 



" agriculture, commerce, and public work*." Great 

 Britain h. i- thht.cn cabinet minister*, one of wln-m in 

 'Board of Trade," and another is 

 lent >f the Board of Public Works." Diiti.-s 

 wttioh in Knv'land are considered of sufficient Impor- 

 tance to require the services of two cabinet officers ore 

 in tliin country confided to subordinates and clerks, 

 or wholly n.xh-' 

 It in true that under the limited powers of ourQov- 



n. Mu-iit Mi.-h u Department would exercise less con- 

 tn.l tlutn in European nations, but its nut-fulness in 

 promoting tin 1 tfreat industrial interests of the people, 

 on which the prosperity of the country depends, 



be incalculable. "The organization of a Depart- 

 inciit dt' Industry has not, however, been reoomiiu-iul- 



tlio committee, and I will therefore defer its 

 n until some future occasion. 



ving that competition among railways, when 



.ril fly private interests, is wholly unreliable 

 and utterly 'inefficient, that direct congressional reg- 

 ulation of rates and fares may cure certain evils and 

 abuses, but will never provide such commercial facili- 

 ties as the necessities and best interests of the country 

 demand, let us inquire, by what means may they be 

 obtained i 



1 answer, they are to be obtained only through com- 

 petition under governmental control, and operating 

 through cheaper means of transport than are now pro- 

 vided; and such cheaper means of transport can only 

 be provided by the construction of double-track freight 

 railways, oroythe improvement and creation ojwater- 



" -.-. 



The solution of the problem of cheap transportation 

 is therefore narrowed down to the consideration of 

 these alternative propositions, namely: freight rail- 

 ways under governmental control, or water-routes 

 open to free competition. 



III. INDIRECT REGULATION BY MEANS OF ONE OR MORE 

 DOUBLE-TRACK FREIGHT RAILWAYS TO BE OWNED 

 OB CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 



Iii the report submitted the committee have dis- 

 cussed at considerable length the merits and advan- 

 tages of a double-track freight railway between the 

 Mississippi River and New York City, and have como 

 to the conclusion that such a railway honestly con- 

 structed and operated, and performing an amount of 

 business reasonably to be anticipated, could pay all 

 expenses together with a fair return on its cost, at 

 rotes for transportation of fourth^class freights not 

 exceeding 74 mills per ton per mile. At this rate a 

 ton of wheat could be carried from the Mississippi 

 River to New York for about |8.25, or at the rate of 

 25 cents per bushel. The average cost during tho 

 lust five years by rail has been about $16.50 per ton, 

 or at the rate of about 50 cents per bushel. All the 

 data on which this conclusion is based will be found 

 in full in the evidence and report submitted by the 

 committee. The construction of such a line would 

 doubtless be of incalculable benefit to a large section 

 <it' the country, but other sections would be entitled 

 to equal consideration, and if one such road should 

 be built at Government expense, fair dealing toward 

 those sections not directly benefited would require tho 

 construction of at least two additional lines, costing 

 in the aggregate from two hundred and fifty to three 

 hundred million dollars. The heavy expenditure re- 

 quired, and other considerations of a political and 

 economic character mentioned in the report, have in- 

 duced the committee to content themselves with a 

 statement of the probable advantages to be derived 

 from such improvements, without making any recom- 

 mendations on the subject, excepting in so far as 

 they have suggested railway portages, to connect 

 natural water-routes, where canals may be considered 

 impracticable, or where it is believed that compara- 

 tively short freight railways will do the work more 

 cheaply than it can be done by water. 



This brings me to the consideration of the alterna- 

 tive measure above stated, namely : 



IT. "TUB IMPBOTOUST AKD CXXATIOV or WATEB- 

 BOPTM." 



A careful and thorough investigation of the relative 

 merit* of water and rail trauporUtion, both in Eu- 

 rope and in this country, ha* convinced me that for 

 all cheap, heavy, and bulky articles, where cot i* a 

 more important element than time, water afford* the 

 cheapest and best known meant of transport. In 

 making this comparison, and in the conclusion* de- 

 duced therefrom, I shall rely wholly upon testimony 

 drawn from actual operations by water and by rail. 

 The verdict of commerce itself, pronounced upon va- 

 rious routes and under diverse circumstance*, i* re- 

 corded in the following facts : 



On tho through lino from the Ohio River to Boston, 

 composed of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad ana 

 the Boston Steamship Company, the earning* were 

 divided as four to one in favor of water, counting tho 

 actual distances operated by each. 



On the line between Baltimore and New York, 

 consisting of railway, canal, and open water, and 

 involving payment or tolls on the canal, the earning* 

 were prorated by allowing the vessels 125 mile* for 

 an actual distance of 230 miles making nearly two 

 to one in favor of water. 



The Erie Railway Company and the steamer* from 

 New York to Boston have a prorating arrangement 

 equivalent to three to one in favor of water. 



From Parkersburg and Cincinnati the arrangement 

 between tho railway and river steamer* allows the 

 latter for 250 miles by water as the equivalent of 125 

 miles by rail, being two to one hi favor of the river. 



The arrangements between the Erie Railway Com- 

 pany and tho hike-steamers is that the railway shall 

 furnish terminal facilities at Buffalo and Dunkirk, 

 and the steamer-lined terminal facilities at Milwau- 

 kee and Chicago ; and the actual distance of 1,000 

 miles is prorated at 212 miles, making nearly five 

 to one in favor of the lake. 



The Central Vermont Railway and the Northern 

 Transportation Company (steamer-line) constitute a 

 through line from Chicago to Boston and other places 

 in' New England. The distance by water is 1,865 

 miles, and the distances by rail average about 500 

 miles. The earnings are divided equally, being near- 

 ly three to one in favor of water. This comparison is 

 the more valuable, because the officers of the railway 

 company own a controlling interest in the stock of the 

 steamship company, and hence may be supposed to 

 divide according to actual cost of service. Mr. Die- 

 fendorf, agent of the steamboat company, testified 

 that this division of earnings " is predicated upon the 

 cost of transportation," 



The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway prorates with 

 vessels on the Ohio River upon the basis of two to 

 one in favor of the river. 



The gross earnings on the through line from Chi- 

 cago to Now Orleans, via the Illinois Central Rail- 

 way to Cairo (865 miles), and thence by the Missis- 

 sippi River to New Orleans (1,050 miles), are divided, 

 three-fifths to the railroad and two-fifths to the river ; 

 making, on the charge of $7 per ton from New Or- 

 leans to Chicago, 27 mills per ton per mile for the 

 river, and 11.5 mills per ton per mile by the railroad, 

 or over five to one in favor of the Mississippi River, 

 against the current. 



From the Eanawha coal-mines to Huntington, 

 West Virginia, the distance by rail is 67 miles, and 

 the minimum charge for transporting coal 75 cents 

 per ton; from the same coal-mines, to Cincinnati, 

 by the Ohio River, the distance is 275 miles, and 

 the charge per ton for coal transportation is 50 cents ; 

 being at tho rate of nearly 2 mills per ton per mile 

 by river, and 11.2 mills per ton per mile oy rail; 

 nearly six to one in favor of the river. The river 

 rates include the return of the boats to the coal- 

 mines. 



From Pittsburg to New Orleans, via the Ohio and 

 Mississippi Rivers, 2,400 miles, coal is transported 

 during high water for $1.60 per ton, or at the rate 



