Part 6

"Another city down here where we were beautifully entertained last night, Tacoma--I remember when we came out here they really did not need us and we did not want to force ourselves on them, and so we stayed right here. But I think, and I hope, that Tacoma is getting its eyes open and that it wants more railways. We don't ask much; we want the privilege of a place for foothold, a place to do our business at our own expense; and I think that we will probably succeed in getting it--I hope so.

GROWTH PLEASES HIM.

"I wanted to come back to your city here. I was more than surprised at your growth and I am more than gratified. I rather gathered that you had grown fast and that possibly you wanted a resting spell, but I don't see that there is any rest for you now. I think that you will go on as you have begun, and I was more than glad to see what you are doing in the way of adjusting your street grades. It is inexpensive; the burden may be hard upon some people, and difficult to carry, but it will cost infinitely less to do it now than in five or ten years, after those streets were lined with buildings that had cost a great deal of money and you could not afford to throw them away. Lay your foundations right and the structure will take care of itself.

"It will grow by degrees, and, when it is finished it will be part of a complete whole and you will be glad you did it. We have a good many communities to take care of along our railway, and with every one of them we have always the feeling that their prosperity means our prosperity. They have to earn the money before they can pay it to us, and what they do pay us we think is a small part; but we expect the railway business must depend upon close management and small savings.

"Take the dividend of the Great Northern railway. _Three copper cents in moving a ton of freight ten miles pays our dividends._ A ton of freight on a country road would be a fair load for a farmer's wagon, and ten miles would be a fair day's work if he returned the same night. We do that. Our dividend amounts to about 3 cents--a little less than three copper cents--for moving that load of freight. We find that we have neither poisoned the air nor the water and you have all the highways that you had before we came, but we give you a better one and a cheaper one.

MUST HAVE MONEY.

"And remember that you never can injure the railway without injuring yourselves. The railway has only two sources from which to get money. It must either earn it or borrow it, and if it borrows, and borrows judiciously, the rate of interest ought not to be high, but whatever it is, high or low, you pay it. Sometimes people who do not know better think that they are serving a good cause to stick the railway--the company is rich--a personal injury case or something of that kind--but it is a railway and they can afford it--stick them. Now, who pays the bill? Can we charge that up to the construction of a station?

"It is a part of the expense, and the law says that you must pay us for the use of our property enough to pay our expenses and our taxes, and a reasonable return upon the investment, so that all is charged in your bills.

"We had in one thriving city on the Great Northern, I recall, a suit for $20,000. A young brakeman stumbled against a pile of cinders that it was represented the trackmen threw out from between the rails and poured water upon it, and it froze in the winter and was solid, and as he was running alongside of his train he stumbled and fell and was injured--some great injury to the spine that wrecked his entire nervous system, and we inquired and found out how the coal got there, and our experience and education have made us suspicious; we took the cinders to the laboratory and had them analyzed and absolutely they were anthracite, and there never was a ton of anthracite coal burned in a locomotive in the State of Minnesota; we followed it up and we found that the man who brought the suit--a professional suit bringer--had, with a brakeman and his own son, taken the cinders from his own office and piled them there and poured water on them. Now, I speak of that just as an illustration of some applications of that Golden Rule.

COMPARES RAILWAY COST.

"Your future growth will depend on yourselves hereafter, as it has largely depended upon your own efforts in the past. The commerce going to and from the Pacific Coast cities by the sea is being largely carried in foreign bottoms. There was a time when the American nation was a nation of seafaring men, but that does not apply any longer, and I am sorry that that is so. I believe that the people of the United States, I believe that the genius of the country is just as able to carry upon the sea as upon the land. As matters stand today, any bay or inlet where a foreign flag can force its way inland into our country they can call to us to drop the bundle and they take it from us and we can't help ourselves. Now, we ought to be able to help ourselves, for on the land we have so far surpassed the others that there is no comparison.

"In Great Britain their average railway cost is $234,000 per mile. In the United States it is a little less than $60,000 per mile. In Germany it is about $110,000, in France about $140,000, in Austria about the same. Now let us see what they do with their two hundred and thirty-four thousand dollar machine and their one hundred and ten and one hundred and forty. In Great Britain they move an average of five hundred thousand ton miles to the mile of road at a cost of $2.16 for every hundred miles. In Germany they move about seven hundred thousand ton miles at a cost of a trifle under $1.36 for every hundred miles. In France 450,000 ton miles at a cost of $1.40 for every hundred miles. In Austria the cost is $1.50 for moving a ton of freight a hundred miles, and in the United States the cost is 74 cents and a fraction.

AGAINST SHIP SUBSIDY.

"Now we in the United States move the business for less than half the average cost of Europe. We pay from twice to four times the rate of wages, and we do it with an investment of about a third of their average. If we can do that on land, why can't we do it on the sea? I know that if the ships of the United States had the same care and the same opportunity that the ships of other nations have they would do it, and until then no subsidy, no ship subsidy, will ever enable them to compete with other business, because in principle it is wrong to tax all the business of the country--to put your hand into the public treasury and hand out to one particular business a cash subsidy in order that it may live.

"I want to tell you that a steamship line that cannot live without a cash subsidy will make a mighty, mighty lean race with one. It ought to rest on a business foundation. That is the only reason for running ships, because they can be made to pay, and if we can make our railways pay and work at the low rates that the railways in the United States do carry and pay the scale of wages that they do pay, why can't we succeed on the high seas? If we can't, let us hand that business over to somebody who will do it cheaper and better; but I don't feel that the case is a hopeless one, but, on the other hand, I do feel that it would only limit the efforts of those who were trying to make and to build up a merchant marine for the United States; it would only limit their efforts to extend a subsidy to a few ships engaged in the business.

FOREIGNERS GET SUBSIDY.

"I remember on one occasion that I went home from here and there was no tonnage to move the stuff we had to send to the Orient. Absolutely no tonnage was available, and when I got home there was a reception to one of our public men, and the late Senator Mark Hanna was there. I took up in a few remarks the question of a subsidy, and I said. 'If we are going to have one, let us pay a subsidy for something that is going to do us some good. Let us pay a tonnage on the actual products that reach a new market.'

"That would have done some good. The tonnage of the products that does not reach a new market, we wouldn't have anything to pay on that, and on that that does we could afford to pay. Now, we were driven out of the business on the Atlantic, but we might retain a hold upon the business of this ocean. Immediately there was a scheme for Congress for an appropriation, I think of $9,000,000, for ship subsidies, and they found that 80 per cent. of it would go to one line, under the bill that was being then drawn--and that line on the Atlantic Ocean--and I know that the men and most of the officers lived on the other side of the Atlantic, and the stock was owned on the other side of the Atlantic. Now that would not build up a merchant marine for us.

"A company over there has disposed of this old boat to our people and taken what new money they got and built new boats. That was all and that was celebrated--a portion of that was celebrated as the inauguration of a new merchant marine for the United States. Think of it!

"But some of our statesmen were wise enough to believe that it was going to succeed, but it did not. It fell ingloriously. When we have a merchant marine it will be because there is a reason for it. But until that time comes, just put up with the business that we can get, and let the others carry it who can carry it lower and better than we can in this country.

"But bear this in mind: That all your great harbors in the country when compared with the railroad yards sink into insignificance in the tonnage that they move. I think that, in Seattle, I would be safe in saying that twenty tons are moved by rail where one goes by water, unless you can count saw logs. And I had occasion to look up St. Louis. The Mississippi at St. Louis has from eight to twelve feet of water for nearly nine months in the year and boats run in and out of St. Louis, and we are all anxious to make a deep water channel from there to New Orleans.

"Now, in looking up the amount, I found that, notwithstanding they had from eight to twelve feet of water for nine months in the year, or about nine months, less than 1 per cent. of the tonnage that came into St. Louis moved by water; and out of over 1,500,000 tons of coal--and if there is any article among all the shipments that could be moved by water easily and cheaply it would be coal--not one ton of coal moved out of St. Louis by water last year.

"There is a scheme to spend the public money and create a channel fourteen feet deep to the levees at the mouth of the Mississippi, and there are plans to lath and plaster the bottoms of a great many other streams throughout the country, and so many that in order to get any appropriation for an enterprise of great national merit, it is necessary to divide up and load it down with a lot of appropriations. These make what is known as the pork barrel, the river and harbor bill. They load it down with the various enterprises that have no value to anybody, streams on which the government is called to spend more money than all the boats would bring if sold at auction, and in some cases where there have been no boats run for ten years.

LEADS WORLD IN TONNAGE.

"They say they ought to regulate the railroads. Now, when you come to consider the matter practically, I would rather have a railroad alongside of a navigable river, or a river with six or eight or ten feet of water in it, than to have it far away from the river. A box car will beat any ten-foot channel in the world, but when we get twenty or twenty-five-foot channels, the box car is not in it in bulky freight. You have got to have depth of water.

"Some years ago I built six freight steamers on the Great Lakes and they were considered whales in their day. They could carry 3,000 tons. Today a lake steamer and a double channel through the Soo Canal carries 12,000 tons, and has two additional firemen and one deckhand, and that is all the additional crew.

"Sometime I would like to have the city council of the City of Seattle, if they had the time, run down to the head of Lake Superior, and see what is the greatest port in the matter of tons moved in the world. London was, and Duluth and Superior a few years ago were trailing along fifth or sixth place; but last year it took first place with the cities of the world, and it handled more tonnage than any other city. London had 30,000,000 tons and Duluth had 34,000,000.

"Now, to show the enormous importance of that load of tonnage, that tonnage that is greater than any other city in the world, I undertake to say, and do say, that there are not 1,000 people, men, women and children, connected directly or indirectly, with moving that traffic between the land and the water in both directions. There is such a thing as doing a very large business without a harbor at all.

SEATTLE SPIRIT WINS.

"Although as far as foreign commerce is concerned, as far as business is concerned, when we get to the seaside, we have to hand it over to the ships. It must be done. But the great business is done in the railroad yards. I would not be without the harbor--far from it, but don't feel that the harbor is going to make you, and don't feel as a gentleman in public life in Washington, when a friend of mine talking with him said, 'You won't get any more railways built along the policies you advocate.' 'Oh, well,' he said, 'we have got them, we have got them.' And he was a member of the house committee of interstate commerce, a rather dangerous statement for him to make."

AT TACOMA.

In his address at the banquet of the Tacoma Chamber of Commerce on the preceding evening (November 9), Mr. Hill dwelt especially on the intimate relation of railway and agriculture interests. Among other things he said:

"The question of terminals means a great deal to a railroad and it is getting to be more and more full of meaning every year. Some cities, and large cities, today have all the railroads they will ever get, simply on account of the difficulty in getting terminals. I think the Northern Pacific terminals today--I think to buy them on the entire system--would cost more money than to grade the whole road, and I do not know but what it would cost more than to grade and put the rails down. That is a condition and, remember, that you pay the freight.

* * * * *

WILL SOON NEED ALL THE WHEAT WE RAISE.

"Within a comparatively short time, I will say that within six years, I will go on record, you won't send many cargoes of wheat from Tacoma by sea, simply because the United States wants every bushel that will be raised within the United States to feed her own people, and will pay you more money for it. If they didn't pay you more money for it, it would go to the foreigner, but our own people will pay more money for it and take it somewhere and grind it into flour. If you look for greater avenues or greater economy in transportation, but it will cease to go out as wheat. I will give you an illustration and you can draw your own conclusions as well as I can: In 1882 the United Slates raised 504,000,000 bushels of wheat and we had 52,000,000 people and we exported somewhere between 175,000,000 and 200,000,000 bushels. Twenty-five years later, in 1907, we raised 634,000,000 bushels. We increased in that twenty-five years a little less than 25 per cent. in our wheat yield, or 130,000,000 bushels.

"Our population increased 64 per cent., and converging lines meet somewhere. Now, if we had 90,000,000 of people--and we have between 88,000,000 and 90,000,000 this year--and use six and a half bushels per capita, it would take 585,000,000 bushels for bread and seed. Professor Rogers, of the Minnesota Agricultural College, puts our consumption for bread and seed for the last few years at a trifle over or a trifle under seven bushels. I think he uses ten years for his average, and I use twenty-five to get an average of about six bushels and forty pounds, and I call it six and one-half bushels.

"On last year's crop, with 634,000,000, we have had about 59,000,000 bushels to sell and we sold about 80,000,000. What is the result? After the 15th of January wheat was higher in Minneapolis than it was in Chicago, even up to the first of August, and part of the time it was higher than it was in New York, because they wanted it to make a loaf of bread to feed our people at home.

"We have not the great margin that we used to have. The seed on last year's crop went down to 59,000,000 bushels and, if my figures are equal to Professor Rogers'--and he is a professor of agriculture in the Agricultural College and maybe he has more time to look these questions up more carefully--but with his figures we hadn't a bushel to sell. Suppose we had 60,000,000 bushels to sell, and we are increasing in population at the rate of 2,000,000 per year, our natural figure is between 1,300,000 and 1,400,000, and allow 700,000 for immigration, not eleven, twelve, thirteen or fourteen as we have been having, but say seven and by 1950 you will have in the United States, it figures out to be accurate, 208,000,000, but suppose we have 200,000,000, it might come by 1945, or 1947, or it might be in 1955, but about that time we will have 200,000,000 people, and if they use six and a half bushels per capita for bread and seed, it would take 1,300,000,000 bushels to feed them.

PROBLEM OF THE WHEAT.

"That is a little more than twice what you are raising today, and you haven't any new fields to put a new plow in. From 1882, when we raised 504,000,000 bushels of wheat, following that time more than half of Minnesota, all the northern part of Minnesota, was brought under the plow, all of North Dakota, all of South Dakota, all of the state of Washington and all of Oregon, except 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 bushels raised in 1882, more than half of California, two-thirds or three-quarters in Kansas and Nebraska, a large part, practically all of Oklahoma or the Indian Territory and a large part of Texas, and take what was raised in 1907 on the new fields that were opened up, any new territory after 1882, and you will find that it is approaching 300,000,000 bushels, but the increase in the whole country in that twenty-five years was only 130,000,000 bushels, so that the old fields fell off about 170,000,000 bushels.

"Are we increasing our yield per acre? By no manner of means. It has been a steady and uniform decline for the past thirty years. Now, we have as good wheat fields as there are anywhere on the continent, and they will be made better. I am not a disciple of Malthus, because Malthus was an honest man no doubt, but when he wrote he did not understand the science of modern agriculture or the adaptation of the soil or of the seed to the soil, or the commercial value of a correct analysis of the soil and the adaptation of the soil nor its commercial value as suited to the crop it is best fitted for. All these things we have learned, and while you are teaching your young people let me advise you that the school that is most entitled to your care and the school that will do the most for the state in every place and will turn out men and women as they have always in industry and intelligence and everything else that goes to make good citizenship, the school attended by the boy on the farm is certainly as good as the best.

"When your forests are cut and hauled away, and sold to somebody else you have then, and we will give you a perennial forest, a crop every year of great value too. But we ought to be able to take care of our land and we will. I have no doubt about the future. We will do what other people have been compelled to do. In 1790, Great Britain was down to fourteen bushels. We are down to thirteen and nine-tenths now, average. They took the question up and it was much easier for them to control, as far as territory was concerned, because the territory was small, in the hands of a few land owners, mostly rented, and they faced conditions compelling the land owner to sub-fallow, and fertilize and carry one crop year after year. They appointed a royal commission and that royal commission went to work jointly. We have a royal commission, too, and they are able men. One is a professor at Cornell and another is a publisher of books in New York, and another is Mr. Pinchot, who is doing a great deal of work, but he is overrun with the work he has to do. This commission is to report in time for the meeting of Congress. Now, bear this in mind, Great Britain started in 1790 trying to keep the people on the land. The landlord was afraid of the great drift of the agricultural people to the colonies and the new republic, the United States at that time. The new republic was going to impoverish them, and leave them without any rent rolls. They went to work intelligently and in 1810 and 1811 Sir Humphrey David, the foremost scientist of his time, delivered most intelligent lectures on the qualities of the soil. In forty or fifty years after they started they had gotten their yield up to an average of twenty-five bushels per acre. Last year, it was 32.2. Starting at fourteen we ought to get up in place of 13.9 or 14, we ought to be able to get up to 28 or 30, and if we do we will have grain to feed our 200,000,000 people and to spare, and what do I hear? 'Some more, and then some?' Now in going over those questions, I am not worrying about the future of the country. I have more confidence in it today, the day for cheap wheat has left the United States, not to return, and we can stand that. This land, this side of the range, you can devote to better uses than raising wheat. I do not know why you should not get returns, as I said, that would equal 10 per cent. on $2,000 per acre. You can do it. There is no question as to that."

SOUTHERN RAILWAYS AND THEIR NEEDS

BY

JOHN F. WALLACE.

Abstract of Address before Southern Commercial Congress Washington, D. C., Dec. 7 and 8, 1908.

This question has been extensively treated by leading railroad men, statesmen and Press of the South, and admirably covered by addresses on numerous occasions before various audiences throughout the South.

I therefore feel that the southern railroad situation is gradually becoming better understood, not only by the public at large, but by the railway men of the South, who are jointly appreciative of the fact that the greatest need of southern railroads is the confidence and support of the communities through which they run and serve.

Therefore, my remarks will be few, and are made in order that certain fundamentals may be read into the record of this convention.

For the purposes of this address the South is described as that portion of the United States lying south of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers and east of the Mississippi.

Shortly after the close of the Civil war, the South realizing the changed order of things, accepted the situation in the spirit of American manhood and started on a new era of industrial and commercial development.

One of the first necessities was a comprehensive system of transportation facilities. The railroads, which prior to the Civil war had compared favorably with those in the North, at its close were practically bankrupt financially and physically, and were more the shadow than the substance of what they should have been.

Southerners with brains and energy, starting with 11,587 miles of detached, dilapidated and crippled railways, immediately commenced to lay the foundation of the present industrial and commercial prosperity in the South by constructing its lines of railway.

The efforts of these men and the confidence they were able to inspire in northern and foreign capital are best illustrated by the fact that today the South is served with 46,434 miles of railroad, serving eleven states, twenty million people, and representing a total investment in round numbers of two billion dollars.