THE FARMER AND THE RAILROADS. 169 



between individuals. They are, perhaps, not now made to 

 such an extent as formerly, as when complaint is made some 

 excuse must be given. The defense almost invariably set u]) 

 is "competition." In the cases which came before it, the 

 Interstate Commerce Commission laid down the principle tliat 

 competition by water, which is not regulated by law, is a 

 sufficient excuse, but that competition by rail, which, if undue, 

 could be controlled by law, was not a good defense. The 

 Supreme Court, however, held that it was, and localities 

 injured by the preference of other places under such circum- 

 stances, probably have no redress until the law is changed. 



"Competition" is the defense usually made by railroads for 

 all violation of the law that no greater freight rate shall be 

 made upon the same commodity for a shorter than a longer 

 distance in the same direction,* the shorter distance being 

 included in the longer — and "conditions" being substantially 

 similar. In interstate commerce, the commission, in cases 

 where it finds conditions not similar, may give permission to 

 make a larger charge for the shorter haul. 



There can be no doubt that this is sometimes to the interest 

 of the general public, even although contrary to the interest 

 of some particular locality. It is necessary that each road 

 raise a certain revenue from its traffic. Whatever it can 

 obtain from any one source decreases by so much the neces- 

 sary collections from all other sources. Each commodity 

 handled ought, if it be possible, to pay its just share of all the 

 expenses of the road transporting it, including its share of 

 interest upon capitalization. If, however, by reason of com- 

 petition at terminal points, it is unable to secure certain classes 

 of traffic at rates which, in comparison with the other traffic 

 upon the line, it ought to receive, it will be to the advantage 

 of the public that it derive whatever revenue may be found 

 possible, so only that it be greater than the actual cost of train 



* farmers often wonder why a railroad should ever be permitted to charge 

 more for hauling one way than another. Evidently it costs more to haul 

 freight up-hill than down-hill. If traffic is naturally heavier in one direction 

 than another, the railroads must be permitted to bid low for freight which can 

 be had at such rates, rather than to haul back empty cars. 



