By J. B. Thayer,
Vice-President Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

Address delivered before the Traffic Club of New York, Saturday Evening, February 16, 1909.

Problems—both many and varied—have always confronted the railway manager. Particular problems come to the front from time to time that tax all of our resources. They differ with different periods of our history. Today one of the most serious depends more for its solution upon our lawmaking bodies, both State and national, than upon the railroad men, and for the present, at least, we must feel like the old Arkansas darky, who said he was "in the hands of an all-wise and unscrupulous Providence."

In the early days of railroads the chief problem was that of construction and equipment; later, when more railroads had been built than there was traffic to feed, there came the traffic problem, and all the abuses which followed in its train. These, in turn, led to the legislative problem accompanied by the Interstate Commerce Law of 1887, and through the '90s all sorts of problems—including bankruptcy for many. Now, within the past few years has come the great problem of enlargement—the construction period again, but in a different shape. Not experimental, for we had learned how to build and how to equip; not the building so much into new country, but to take care of the traffic which was overflowing our rails.

Events of the past year have proved the absolute necessity for almost all the large railroads in this country to enlarge their trackage, their terminals, and their equipment; and yet, here again, when in considering where to obtain the necessary funds for such purposes,—which must, of course, come from the public,—the railroad managers find themselves confronted with great difficulties. This, of course, is largely due to the tremendous demands for capital, in the development that is going on in all parts of the world, but it is increased, at the moment, by the natural timidity of capital to invest its funds in railroad securities, in view of the violent attacks that are being made against corporations through Congress and the State legislatures.

POPULAR HOSTILITY TO THE RAILROADS.

This brings us, then, to our greatest and most perplexing problem—that of how to restore a state of reciprocal understanding and fairness between the carriers and the public. Many railroad officials believe that so deep-seated is the apparent hostility of the people that the management of the railways will be taken practically out of the hands of their owners, and that great disasters are to follow. I do not share this view, principally for the reason that whatever may have been the faults in the past, the methods and practices of railroad management are now based upon a decent regard for their public responsibilities. Sooner or later the people will recognize this—as I believe they are already beginning to do. But by no means can we minimize the actual situation of today. It is, indeed, a time of great anxiety to all those entrusted with railroad management, and who have the interests of their country at heart as well.

With the old rebates and secret discriminations things of the past, with all kinds of business in a most prosperous condition, we all know that within the past three years, suddenly, out of an almost cloudless sky, there has burst forth upon the railroads of this country a torrent of the most bitter and violent attacks—by political orators upon the stump; in magazines and newspapers; in Congress and State legislatures. It is fair to say, I think, that this onslaught had its origin in the agitation of 1904 for changes in the Interstate Commerce law. It was based upon a misunderstanding of existing railroad conditions and the position of the railroad in regard to the points at issue, which I shall presently explain.

Following the agitation surrounding the passage of the rate bill has come a swarm of bills in Congress and State legislatures, which, if they become laws, and are enforced, will prove disastrous to the railroads, and, equally so, to the public at large. The question is, What is to be done to prevent it? The old method of influence has been abandoned, and, I hope, forever. Has it left us unequipped to meet the issue? To answer this question let us get a perspective.

RAILROADS NOT BLAMELESS.

We must not imagine, to begin with, that we are entirely blameless. We are in some respects only realizing the wages of past sins. We have done many of "those things which we ought not to have done," and we have left undone many of "those things we ought to have done." Most of the evils date back many years and many of them might have been prevented had the government done its duty and enforced the law. Yet even in most recent years we can find some mistakes with which to concern ourselves. It is not strange that many men who have suffered loss through delays in their traffic, or in their personal transportation, or who saw themselves deprived of profitable business because they could not secure cars, should have become exasperated and, not having time to properly analyze the difficulty, thought that the railroads were lacking in foresight and management.

But let us go back a few years. It is a great mistake to hold the railroads responsible for such practices as rebating in those days, when it would have been impossible to throw a stone in a commercial community without hitting somebody who was taking rebates and wanting more. Many men are today running for office on anti-railroad platforms who if you were to say "Rebates" would duck their heads very much as David Harum said his Newport friends would do if he called out "Low bridge!" That rebates were wrong nobody questions, but to pillory a man today for accepting rebates at that time is a farce.

Many persons believe that the so-called discriminations, resulting in the secret arrangements, were largely influenced by the desire upon the part of railroad officials to favor one man against another, but no thoughtful man who has at all studied the problem believes this. Rebates and other forms of discrimination,—whatever may have been the result in specific instances,—had their origin mainly in the competition between carriers for the traffic. Incidentally, in transacting railroad business through secret arrangements, as became the custom in that period, there were many cases of discrimination in favor of the strong and against the weak.

There was a strong feeling upon the part of many men, both in and out of railway service, that the larger shipper, under the ordinary rules of business, was entitled to a lower rate, and they could not conceive the real principle which should govern the making of railroad rates,—which, however, has come clearly to be realized since that time. The railroad systems, generally, were not more anxious to pay rebates than they were to pay higher prices for their supplies, and simply pursued the course of their competitors because, otherwise, they saw nothing but loss and probable bankruptcy staring them in the face. The railroads were forbidden by law to meet and make formal agreements for the maintenance of rates, and by another law were required to compete. We all thought that the old plan was competition.

Had the Government, through its Interstate Commerce Commission, vigorously undertaken to enforce the law—passing if necessary, long before it did, the Elkins Act—I think we should have seen a correction of these abuses long before the reform came; but, as a matter of fact, neither the Government authorities nor many of those managing the railroads had yet reached a clear conception of the significance of the abuses which existed and of the proper legal method of uprooting those evils.

GETTING AWAY FROM OLD ABUSES.

Upon the resumption of business activity, in 1898 and 1899, and, later, following the passage of the Elkins Act, the opportunity was presented,—and in general accepted by the railroads,—to get away from the old methods. While since then there have been some cases of violation of the law, in the matter of secret arrangements, yet I think that, at least within the last four or five years, it is safe to say that they have been of small importance, and perhaps, in many of the cases—while a technical violation of the law—were actually not discriminations. I say this advisedly, so far as the eastern situation is concerned, because I know that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company has not paid a rebate for years, and it is fair to believe that as that company held its traffic,—in fact, largely increased it,—without the necessity for such arrangements, its competitors must have to a large extent pursued the same policy.

But not alone in reference to freight rates was there more or less complicity in evil between the people and the railroads, but let me ask you to consider, for a moment, the question of free transportation, or passes,—whether political or business. It is only within the last year or two that the public conscience has been awakened on this subject. It is true, the railroads have been abused for several years by those who did not enjoy such favors, but is the railroad more responsible for the conditions that existed than the Government of the people, either in the National Congress or in the State legislatures, and how could it be expected that the legislators in one State could feel that they were doing very wrong in accepting passes, when the legislators of another State enjoyed them by law of the State? How could members of Congress be criticised for accepting such privileges, or the railroads for extending them, when the Presidents of the United States and member of their cabinets, and other important officers of the Government not only accepted them, but practically exacted them, and, further, expected that private cars and private trains should be furnished without charge? Upon one occasion within the past two years I called upon the Interstate Commerce Commission to ask its assistance in eliminating the pass abuse, and was very frankly told that it could make no move, nor take any interest in the subject, in view of the fact that important public officials including Senators and the members of Congress felt that it was not improper for them to accept them. Out of this situation grew a large part of the pass abuse, because, following the national government and the legislatures, the large men of business felt that they could properly accept similar privileges.

Therefore, I repeat, that while there were great abuses—especially during the period referred to—embittering a large portion of people, yet the railroads were no more responsible than the people themselves; and yet, without doubt it was during this period that the foundation was laid for the feeling of the present day.

RAILWAYS WELCOME JUST REGULATION.

But, as I stated, we were forced to bear the brunt of our past sins—and more—in the campaign for increasing the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Do not misunderstand me. Many thoughtful railroad men believed always, in the value, both to the railroads and the public, of an interstate law, and, further, considered it wise to strengthen the power of the Commission. The distinction, however, between what railroad men did and did not believe in, is very clear. We felt and we feel now that the government is perfectly justified in regulating railroad practices to the extent of preventing discriminations. Indeed, the government should act as a sort of policeman to see to it that the weak and the helpless are protected. If reasonably administered, the railroads need the law. But the government should not have the right to interfere with the proper play of the natural commercial forces of the nation. The great distinction between police and commercial powers should never be lost sight of.

The danger does not lie in the provisions of the new national law. There is no substantial difference between its provisions and those of the old law, except in respect to the powers of the Commission. There was no necessity for the new law, so far as the prevention of the old abuse of secret rates and discrimination was concerned. The operation of this law does not involve any material change in traffic operations of the railroads; the only danger is as to how the Commission may exercise their power in influencing reductions in rates, but even in that respect the railroads have the right of appeal to the courts. It is from various other bills being presented in Congress in which the immediate danger lies, showing possible interference by the national government with the operation of railroads, with respect to the hours of labor of its employes, systems of signals, and other methods of operation, which should properly be left to the railroads themselves. This threatened interference of the federal government is having a powerful and dangerous influence upon the legislatures of the various states, who apparently are—in a slang term—"Seeing Congress and going them five or six better"—in the bills for reduction of state rates, both passenger and freight; for increase in taxation, and all sorts of measures which tend to reduce the earnings and increase the expenses, and hamper and delay the actual development necessary.

It was unfortunate that in the agitation and discussion following the President's recommendations, until the present law was finally adopted, there was a total misunderstanding upon the part of the public at large as to this attitude of the railroads. It was most unfortunate in that campaign that the principal point of contest upon the part of the railroads was lost sight of—and that is—the objection upon their part not to reasonable amendments to the law, and not—if the people wanted it—to some increase of power to the Commission, but to the attempt to make a commission of five or seven men—in many respects a political body—the final arbiters as to the rates and fares of the railroads.

DIFFICULTIES UNDER THE PRESENT LAW.

Yet even with the new law on the statute books, our traffic problems are still with us. We are forbidden by law to make formal agreements as to rates, yet it is universally recognized that in order to secure an equitable adjustment of rates, it is absolutely necessary that the traffic managers of the railroads shall confer frequently. It is well known that such conferences are held and must be held to prevent discriminations, yet no definite agreements can be made.

The present law stipulates that there shall be no discrimination by railroads against persons or communities. Right here, however, the railroads are face to face with a problem all their own, which is a very serious one, and that is: How shall a particular railroad prevent discrimination against a community on its own line by some other railroad seeking to specially favor a community on its line? Is it not absolutely essential that there should be both an understanding and a virtual agreement on the part of the two railroads concerned for the purpose of protecting both communities?

Cases of dispute between railroads as to proper rate adjustments have, indeed, been referred to Interstate Commerce Commissioners as arbitrators and their findings have been observed. This shows how absolutely vital to all business is the necessity for that co-operation which can only be secured by agreement and conference between all interested parties. The President of the United States recognized the necessity for this fact in his last annual message and recommended that some legislation be passed which would permit agreements between railroads as to rates.

We are thus in the presence of this ridiculous situation; that on the one hand we are being threatened with prosecution by the Government for violation of the Sherman Act in respect to methods which on the other hand the President of the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commissioners agree must be followed in order to properly discharge our responsibility to the public—in other words, we are "between the devil and the deep sea," or we are damned if we do, or we are damned if we don't.

So much for the moment, for our national problem. As to State regulation: while not believing—now that we have a national law—that it is necessary or desirable for the public to establish state commissions and special railroad laws, at the same time, if the people desire such commissions, we have no right to look upon such a demand as "anarchistic," but we feel that the working of such commissions will be unsatisfactory to the business interests.

CONFIDENCE AND JUSTICE NEEDED.

These are but a few of our problems and difficulties. While I do not wish to minimize the dangers of the present situation, while I recognize that it is now to some extent, by adding to the timidity of investors, retarding our ability to secure funds necessary to make extensions and buy equipment required for the ever-increasing traffic of the country, and if continued will make it impossible, yet I am firmly of the opinion that the good sense of the people will prevail and the unjust attacks cease. Confidence of investors both here and abroad is needed to furnish funds, and, if this is seriously shaken, the prosperity of the railroads, which are the keystone of the arch of business, will be destroyed.

To avoid these dangers a regime of confidence and fairness on the part of the public toward the railroads must be restored, and to accomplish this we must place our case, as it were, before the legislators and the people and make clear our difficulties and the complications which beset us. Few, after all, understand the railroad problem, and we have not made it plain to the people, either because it was the fashion not to do so, or because we could not realize that things simple to us were not understood by the public. We must not stop at one statement, but discourse upon and elucidate every subject which the public misunderstands.

Let us be frank and take the public into our confidence as fully as is consistent with the proper conduct of our business. Let us approach the subject with the feeling that the railroads are not absolutely perfect, that we have to some extent brought this condition of affairs upon ourselves, and that we should govern ourselves in the future accordingly. Let us undertake to go frankly before the people and present the actual facts in connection with our affairs.

THE PENNSYLVANIA AS AN ILLUSTRATION.

Let me illustrate: The Pennsylvania Legislature is in session. Numerous bills have been presented, of a most radical nature. It is our purpose to appear before every committee that will hear us, and tell our side of the story. I doubt very much if the average legislator—and certainly not the average citizen—understands whom he is injuring in unjust acts towards the railroads. Take our company, for example. It is not a small group of rich capitalists; it is not Mr. McCrea and myself and a few others; the Pennsylvania Railroad is owned by more than 50,000 people, 30 per cent of whom live in Pennsylvania. Forty-seven per cent of our shareholders are women; and in many cases the dividend is their only source of income. Then there are thousands of bondholders; beyond them are nearly 100,000 employes in the State of Pennsylvania dependent upon the prosperity of the Pennsylvania Railroad for their livelihood.

Therefore, by the usual computation, it is safe to say that approximately half a million people—men, women and children—are actually dependent upon the welfare of this company in the State of Pennsylvania alone.

Upon the Pennsylvania Railroad's prosperity depends the prosperity of the other lines in its system, and including the employes of these lines, there are 200,000 men, who, with their families, constitute an army of a million or more. Behind them, again, are the thousands of men, with their families, who produce the coal and other materials which the railroads use. Anything that cripples the railroads injures every one of these people.

When we make these and other facts plain, I cannot but feel that no injustice will be done. In the meantime, let us keep our minds well balanced, and not allow ourselves to believe that chaos is coming; let us meet the issue fairly and squarely and frankly. While, therefore, necessary for the present, at least, to suspend many improvements, let us keep our courage, trusting to the ultimate good sense of the lawmakers and the people for that sympathy and support to which we feel that we are entitled.