Again, Rail Rates

The life of a member of the Intel, state Commerce Commission is not apt to be an unduly happy one. From one side he is threatened by the fulminations of Congress and the railroads; from the other, the contradictory demands of business men all over the country.

When the transcontinental rail rates came up for discussion last week, the whole problem of competition afforded by water freights through the Panama Canal was interjected at once. Since steel and other commodities can be shipped more cheaply to the Pacific coast by water via the canal than over the transcontinental railroads, eastern steel manufacturers were favored over those in the Middle West, around Chicago. The transcontinental roads ask that their rates be readjusted so they can compete for this business--a demand in which Chicago shippers have joined. As matters stand, it is cheaper for the Chicago shipper to send his goods to the Atlantic coast and thence by water to the Pacific coast than it is to send them by rail direct. This, President J. E. Dawes* of the Chicago Association of Commerce, claimed, meant that the Panama Canal was more useful to Atlantic states than to the middle western states.

When Robert Hules, assistant traffic director of the Chicago Chamber, was asked if he was not seeking a reduction in rates to offset Chicago's geographical situation, he replied that he wanted an "equalization" of rates, so that all parts of the country would be on an equal status, regardless of geographical location.

*Brother of Charles G. Dawes.