By Edward P. Ripley
, President Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company.

Address delivered at the annual dinner of the Railway Business Association, New York, November 10, 1909.

Circumstances over which I had no control caused me to be born with a distinct inability to think consecutively, or talk coherently, in a standing position and before an audience.

Seated on the small of my back with my feet on the desk I sometimes think I am thinking, but when I get before an audience I am like the little steamer plying on the Sangamon River that had a 10-foot boiler and a 12-foot whistle—when she whistled she stopped. But my weakness, or rather one of my weaknesses, is susceptibility to flattery, and when one of your officers represented in honeyed phrase the importance of your organization and of this meeting, and laid particular stress upon the importance of my saying something, I weakly yielded. I know the result will be disappointment, but the responsibility is only partly mine, and you know we railroad men get so little flattery that when properly administered the result is intoxicating.

Also, let me state in extenuation of the crime I am about to commit that the subject was not my own selection, but was chosen for me. My natural disposition in discussing railroads and the public is to growl, while, if I understand your officers' wishes, I am here expected to "purr."

But while a better man might have been selected to say it, there is much to be said as to the railroads and public opinion.

In this country the people rule—and in the long run that system, that method or that personality that does not meet the approbation of the public can not succeed. True, the public is often fooled; true, it "gets on the wrong feet," as often perhaps as on the right; true, it has to be guided, controlled, and at times abruptly stopped by those authorities which it has selected for that purpose; yet the fact remains that the government of the people, that Congress, the legislatures and even the courts are keenly alive to public sentiment and anxious not to stray far from the line of public opinion.

Our forefathers recognized the danger that the majority would not necessarily be right, but might often be wrong, and sought to provide safeguards for the rights of the minority. But these safeguards are obviously growing less efficient; obviously growing weaker; obviously more sensitive to the public clamor which for the moment stands for public opinion, and when all safeguards have been exhausted it is to public opinion that we must look at last.

There are two things about which the public is most critical—one is the management of the newspaper, the other the management of the railroad. In his heart the average citizen believes that he could operate either his daily newspaper or the railroad passing through his town much better than it is being operated; he would perhaps hesitate to announce this opinion, but his attitude is coldly critical, and it is to be remembered that the railroad is all out of doors—all out in the weather, everything about it exposed to the limelight and visible to anybody's naked eye. There is no human activity the operation of which is attended with so much publicity. All our earnings and expenses are published; all our charges and all our methods the subject of regulation, intelligent or otherwise.

Many years ago Mr. W. K. Vanderbilt, journeying to Chicago, was met on the outskirts of the city by an enterprising reporter for a daily paper, who boarded the train and forced himself into the presence of Mr. Vanderbilt and his party, and demanded news on behalf of "the public." Probably Mr. Vanderbilt, resenting the intrusion, said something uncomplimentary to the reporter and possibly to the "public" he claimed to represent, and the next issue of that paper quoted him in scare headlines as using the phrase, "The public be damned." Mr. Vanderbilt subsequently denied having said it, but whether he did or not and whatever may have been his provocation, the phrase has for nearly forty years been used as indicative of the railway man's attitude toward his patrons.

Many years ago also the late George B. Blanchard, being on the witness stand at Albany, was asked what was the correct basis for making freight rates, and replied, "What the traffic will bear"—a most excellent answer, but a most unfortunate one—for it has passed into history as meaning "all the traffic will bear," which is a very different thing.

Such things as these, distorted as they have been, conspired to inflame public opinion, but that is not all.

It is the custom and privilege of men past middle age to be reminiscent and I ask your indulgence for a very brief history of the events that have led us to our present status. My railroad experience began about forty years ago and the railroad business was then much like any other business—it had its price list as did the merchant; but, like the merchant, it had its discounts for large shippers and for special conditions, and the discounts were irregular and various. The larger shippers demanded concessions as a right, and the principle was generally admitted. Naturally the result was favoritism, not because the railroads desired especially to favor one as against another, but because in the nature of things secret rates could not well be given to everybody.

Nobody regarded these secret rates as criminal or objectionable. But as time passed and these discriminations became more frequent and greater there arose a demand from the less favored portion of the shipping community for legislation forbidding the discrimination and providing for like opportunity for all. This was strenuously opposed by the favored shippers and by those railroad men who believed the railroad to be purely a private institution and not amenable to law as to its charges. It was common enough to hear it seriously argued that the larger shipper was entitled to the lower rate—this view was held by many shippers and, I believe, by most railroad managers. They argued that the business was like any other business—that each interest must look out for itself, and that competition between the roads would prevent rates from ever being too high.

For myself I may say that I realized from an early period that discrimination as to rates was unjust and at no time objected to laws forbidding it.

The interstate commerce law was passed in 1887. It was crude in its provisions and was the result of compromises between radicals and conservatives; it sought both to foster competition and to abolish it, and in that respect remains still contradictory and impossible.

Upon the passage of the law, that which had been looked upon as perfectly proper and as the working of natural competitive forces became illegal and criminal. The railroads generally accepted the law and made an honest effort to observe it—the mercantile community did not—indeed, they openly defied it, soliciting rebates unblushingly and threatening with the loss of their tonnage those roads who would not succumb. The Interstate Commission, new to its duties, contented itself with comparatively unimportant decisions and practically did nothing to help those railroads who desired honestly to carry out the provisions of the law; and, as a result, within a year of the passage of the law it was quite generally disregarded. A few railroad men were fined, a few shippers convicted—and almost immediately pardoned—and the law fell into disrepute, a condition disgraceful alike to the government, the shippers and the railroads and especially distasteful to the latter, but exactly what was to be expected.

The result was the passage of the so-called Elkins bill, and later the Hepburn bill, which, while amateurish and in many ways vicious, have effectually stopped the rebate system—a result for which we may all be thankful.

In all the controversies that have led up to this almost complete control of railroad earnings and railroad policies by governmental agencies, the railroads have, as a rule, acted in active opposition. They have not been unanimous—some of us were willing to accept it long before it became a fact, but the majority could see nothing in it but disaster—it is too early to say which was right—perhaps an earlier acceptance of control would have made the control more lenient; perhaps its earlier acceptance would, on the other hand, have bound the chains more tightly. But the fact remains that while the basic principle of absolute equality as to rates has been accepted by the railroads gladly and in all good faith, and they have also accepted the principle of government regulation, the scars of the conflict remain and a large section of the public still suspects and misjudges us. It is true, of course, that in the rapid development of our business and in the exigencies of a most exacting profession there have been abuses and lapses, but I am here to maintain that the standards of fair dealing and commercial honesty in our business have been as high as in any other, and I appeal to you who sit around this table to say if it be not so.

But whatever sins may be laid at our door, however much we may have once believed that ours was a private business to be controlled exclusively by its owners, however much we have resented or still resent the interference of the public as manifested in the various governing bodies, it is, after all, the public that is master and we must all recognize it. It is, however, still our privilege to exercise our right as citizens and members of the body politic to use our efforts to guide it. Acknowledging as we must that the public is all-powerful, the question is, How may we satisfy our masters and thus mitigate our woes and preserve our properties?

First. We must realize, as I think we all do (after a series of very hard knocks), that the railroads are not strictly private property, but subject to regulation by the public through its regularly constituted authorities—that the Government may reduce our earnings and increase our expenses has been sufficiently proved.

Second. To meet this situation we must endeavor to get in touch with public opinion. Perhaps you will smile when I say that for years I have read every article on railroad matters in each of the papers published along our ten thousand miles of road—not an easy task for a busy man—but while I have waded through much chaff I am sure it has resulted in some reforms.

Third. The avoidance of action seriously counter to public opinion, except for compelling reasons.

Fourth. The disposition to explain these reasons through officers and employes of all grades. Generally, the loudest criticisms come from those who are not anxious to know the truth.

Fifth. Efforts to improve service in many cases without hope of reward and for the deliberate purpose of winning public approval, such as better stations, improved heating and lighting devices, better equipment, better terminal facilities, separation of grades, etc.—all with due regard to the rights of those whose money we are spending.

As we do all these things, meet us half way. Encourage the habit of not rushing into abuse. Try to consider the facts and the difficulties—this is for the public interest as well as ours. Oppose unnecessary and restrictive legislation and give us a chance.

Most of our railroads are mere imitations of what a railroad should be, and what it must be to keep abreast of the country—yet even the poorest serves a useful purpose and can not be spared. An eminent authority has said that five thousand millions of dollars would be required to supply the transportation needs of the next decade, and I do not believe it is an over-estimate. Can private capital be found to that amount unless "public sentiment" is willing to assure it of return? A portion of the public is clamoring for facilities involving great additions to expenses; another portion for limitation of earnings; will the investor consent to accept the risks while strictly limited as to his return? Since the public may do as it will with us and since we are necessary to the public, we may properly call attention to the fact that railway investments already pay less than any other line, and to ask what is to be done—really, it is quite as much the public's affair as ours.

Is it certain that the mixture of private ownership and public regulation which is now prevalent will succeed? Is it not contrary to all rules of political economy and to all the teachings of history? Starting as a purely private industry it has been appropriated in part and other parts are apparently to follow. Granting whatever may be claimed for the advantages of regulation by government, do not equity and ordinary commercial decency require that such close restriction and supervision should be accompanied by some guaranty of return?

I have endeavored to sketch briefly what should be the attitude of the railway man as a railway man toward the public. I am sure I voice the sentiment of all managing railroad officers when I say that our great desire is to please the public and to give it the best possible service for the least possible compensation consistent with reason. Discriminations have long since passed away and nobody is better pleased than the railroad man that it is so. There is no desire to escape either responsibility or regulation. We desire to accord only justice and we ask in return only justice. May I now, as a citizen, appeal to the railway employe, to the members of this Association, and to all other good citizens, to resist to the utmost of their powers the encroachment of government on private rights?

Mr. Elbert Hubbard, of East Aurora, N. Y., recently remarked that "when God sent a current of common sense through the universe most of the reformers wore rubber boots and stood on glass." Our troubles are with this class—well-meaning men who have zeal without knowledge and enthusiasm without sanity; these we may not reach, but the great mass of the solid and substantial citizenship may perhaps be induced to stop and consider whither we are drifting and whether this greatest of all the country's industries is being fairly treated.