HE 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 SSfi 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Class 
 
BLIC SAFETY AND THE 
 INTERURBAN ROAD 
 
 vs. 
 
 THE RAILROAD MONOPOLY 
 IN MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 By HOWARD C. FORBES 
 
 THIS is the crucial year in the existence 
 of the Railroad Monopoly in Massachu- 
 setts. High speed electric railways will 
 give the people rapid transit to greater 
 distances. Shall these electric railways be 
 suppressed in the interest of the Railroad 
 Monopoly ? That is the real question. 
 
 Also, Public Safety is at stake. High speed 
 interurban railways, properly built, are 
 safe. High speed upon street railways 
 produces most hazardous conditions. Al- 
 ready the accidents upon street railways 
 are beyond all reason. The question of 
 the transportation of passengers under 
 safe or unsafe conditions confronts us. 
 
 Price 15 Cents 
 
 PRINTED BY THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U. S. A. 
 1905 
 
THE Railroads propose to suppress rapid 
 transit by electric railways in two ways: 
 first, by owning them; second, by occu- 
 pying the field with slow railways which 
 never can give rapid transit. Either way 
 they win. But in this plan, Public Safety 
 is omitted. 
 
 1. The Railroads propose to own the electric 
 
 railways through the so-called "Merger" 
 bill, which would directly authorize it. 
 The real value of this bill, however, is 
 the State sanction that it would give in 
 extending their Monopoly to the electric 
 railways. 
 
 2. The Railroads propose to prevent rapid transit 
 
 on electric railways by the so-called " little 
 bill/' which would allow street railways 
 to run on private land. This would con- 
 fine electric railway development to street 
 railways running partly upon private right- 
 of-way, and would produce the hazardous 
 conditions of high speed upon street rail- 
 ways. Thereby, rapid transit would be 
 prevented. Instead, we should have high 
 speed cars with slow running time. 
 
T 
 
 HE Railroads are face to face with a 
 situation which has but one of two 
 outcomes, either competition in rapid 
 transit must arise from the electric 
 interurban railways, or the Railroad 
 Monopoly must be complete. Railroad 
 Monopoly versus rapid transit by elec- 
 tric cars is the main contest. 
 
 But the main contest is obscured by the 
 clamor of a smaller contest among a 
 few syndicates, over a local situation, 
 as to which shall have the privilege of 
 selling the franchise to the Railroads. 
 This sub-contest is shown in the re- 
 ports of the committee on street rail- 
 ways minority and majority of the 
 last Legislature, which are appended. 
 
 The following argument takes up the merits 
 of this whole question, and shows that 
 Public Safety is the most important 
 issue, and that the Railroad Monopoly 
 should not be extended. 
 
TO THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE 
 ON RAILROADS AND STREET RAIL- 
 WAYS 
 
 MR. CHAIRMAN: It is now some years since I 
 began to feel that the railway laws of Massachusetts 
 were, perhaps, not the great public boon that they 
 were supposed to be. As electric railways have de- 
 veloped, I have been more and more impressed with 
 the artificial conditions which these laws have pro- 
 duced, and with their general detriment to the best 
 public interest. This committee has been appointed 
 for the specific purpose of revising the general laws 
 relating to railroads and street railways, so that they 
 may better serve the public interest. I desire, there- 
 fore, to present to this committee my views on one 
 aspect of these laws, their relation to the inter- 
 urban electric railway. 
 
 My proposition is simple. We want in the further 
 development of our railways Public Safety, Rapid 
 Transit, and Progress. The people should be car- 
 ried with the greatest degree of safety that is pos- 
 sible. The modern demand for rapid transit should 
 be supplied by a genuine rapid transit, as distin- 
 guished from high-speed cars with slow-running 
 time. And we want the greatest opportunity for 
 progress. We want a progress that at least will 
 keep pace with progress in transportation elsewhere. 
 That the realization of such obvious public benefits 
 is simply a question of proper laws, which will en- 
 courage the natural development in electric trans- 
 portation, the interurban railway, I hope to 
 make plain to you. 
 
4 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 The Possibilities of the Interurban Railway 
 
 The interurban railway is a new kind of passenger 
 transportation. We have developed street railways, 
 which are primarily for the streets; and railroads, 
 for high speed on private right-of-way. And now 
 another class of transportation has arisen, the in- 
 terurban road. As the name implies, it runs from a 
 point in one city to a point in another city, in dis- 
 tinction from the street railway, which runs through 
 all the city streets and into the suburbs. It combines 
 the service of the railroads and the service of the 
 street railways. It runs at high speed on private 
 right-of-way like the railroads; and it gives cars at 
 frequent intervals, stopping on signal from passen- 
 gers, at low rates of fare, like the street railways. 
 It operates by electricity. Such, then, is the inter- 
 urban road as we know it to-day. 
 
 To make clear that the possibilities for public 
 safety, rapid transit, and progress are greater on the 
 interurban road than on the street railways, and even 
 greater than on the steam railroad.s, I have but to 
 direct your attention to a few obvious considerations. 
 The interurban road, properly constructed on private 
 land, away from the travel of the street, will be free 
 from a large class of street accidents. On private 
 right-of-way the tracks need not follow our crooked 
 streets, and hence can run with fewer curves than 
 the street railways. This should eliminate a large 
 class of collisions which are due to blind curves. In 
 fact, the tracks of the interurban roads can be kept 
 nearer straight than the tracks of the steam rail- 
 roads. Long freight and passenger trains require 
 a comparatively level track. To secure this the steam 
 railroads must wind in and out among the hills so 
 that the maximum grade shall not exceed 2%. The 
 electric cars, single or in short trains, with a motor 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 5 
 
 on every axle and every wheel pushing, can go over 
 the hills taking grades of 5 % or more. Thus they 
 can secure more nearly a straight line, and therefore 
 fewer curves, than the steam railroads. Again, in 
 the matter of grade crossings: there are some nine- 
 teen hundred grade crossings in Massachusetts on 
 the steam railroads. On the interurban roads there 
 should he none. 
 
 Now I have long held a principle for the safe 
 operation of railways, which is but an adaptation of 
 the principles of safety that are common in engineer- 
 ing practice. In engineering practice, for instance, 
 a power station is so designed that it cannot be shut 
 down by a failure in any one place. We protect 
 the incomes of corporations by duplicate methods of 
 safety why not the passengers? And so it seems 
 reasonable to provide in the transportation of pas- 
 sengers duplicate and independent safeguards against 
 accidents. The first and most important of these 
 safeguards involves the question of a straight track. 
 The track should be kept so straight that the motor- 
 man can see ahead at every point to a distance in 
 which he can stop his car without fail. And the 
 second safeguard is the automatic block signal. 
 Here, then, we have two safeguards which are totally 
 different in character, each complete in itself, and 
 absolutely independent. The first depends entirely 
 upon human agency, actuated by the strongest of 
 impulses, that of self-preservation, with mistake and 
 f orgetfulness eliminated. The engineer sees the train 
 ahead of him, and he has sufficient space in which to 
 stop. There is no chance of mistake; there is 
 nothing to forget. He will stop his train as usual. 
 The block-signal system should be entirely free from 
 human agency, depending solely upon mechanical 
 devices which will stop the train automatically when 
 it approaches within a mile or two of another train. 
 
6 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 This duplicate system of safety, supplemented by the 
 usual safety devices, would be a method by which 
 railway accidents might be reduced. 
 
 Such a duplicate method of safety can be applied 
 to the interurban road's. Let us see to what extent 
 it might be applied to the steam railroads. The 
 steam railroads are now operated, by what is known as 
 the " Train-Dispatcher " system. The movements of 
 the trains are directed by the train dispatcher, a 
 man who receives at his office all information, calcu- 
 lates how the trains shall proceed, and where they 
 shall meet, or, on a double-track road, where the 
 passenger trains shall pass the freight trains, issues 
 his orders, which are transmitted to the agents, re- 
 ceived and signed for by the engineer and con- 
 ductor, repeated to the train dispatcher, and receive 
 his " O. K." This system depends solely upon human 
 agencies. Obviously it has the possibilities of mis- 
 take in calculation of the position of trains, mistake 
 in transmission of orders, mistake in understanding 
 orders, and forgetfulness. As a system of securing 
 railroad intelligence it is adequate and probably neces- 
 sary. But as mistakes and forgetfulness are inherent 
 in human nature, so is the train-dispatcher system, in 
 spite of its repetitions, sooner or later, bound to fail. 
 How often it does fail we may not know. There is 
 not necessarily an accident every time. The trains 
 may have met in a place where the track was straight. 
 A recent accident in Ohio illustrates the possibilities 
 for mistake. The press report states : 
 
 "... The wreck, according to the officials of the company, 
 was due to a misunderstanding of orders, or a neglect to obey 
 them, on the part of the crew of the freight train. . . . Presi- 
 dent Caniff . . . stated that, from information in the hands 
 of the officials, the freight-train crew had orders to go on the 
 siding at Kishman and there await the passing of a passenger 
 train. Why this was not done in time to permit the passenger 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 7 
 
 train to go by, or a flagman sent out, has not yet been learned. 
 ... It is said that the watch of the engineer of the freight 
 train was slow, and that the engineer believed he had eight min- 
 utes to get his train on the siding before the passenger train 
 was due. The freight train had slackened speed and was about 
 to back in on the siding from the main track when the passen- 
 ger came tearing along at the rate of forty-five miles an hour 
 and da'shed into it. . . . " Boston Herald, Aug. 14, 1905. 
 
 Whether or not the accident happened exactly in 
 this manner, the opportunity for mistake is evident. 
 Obviously, the train-dispatcher system of safeguard- 
 ing against accidents does not stand for a very high 
 degree of public safety. 
 
 To what extent then can the railroads improve 
 their present methods? They can add a block-signal 
 system. Some of the railroads already are equipped, 
 more or less, with block signals, but without a device 
 for automatically stopping the train. They can com- 
 plete their equipment. But the other great means of 
 preventing accidents namely, to provide that the 
 engineer, after he sees trouble ahead, has sufficient 
 space in which to stop is beyond the reach of the 
 steam railroads. Their lines abound in curves. Their 
 trains require an excessive distance in which to stop. 
 Smoke and steam, from his own engine or another, 
 frequently obscure the engineer's vision. In steam- 
 railroad practice much of the time the engineer can- 
 not see ahead to a distance in which it is possible to 
 stop his train. Much of the time he is running 
 blind, relying upon his orders from the train dis- 
 patcher. It is perfectly evident that this must be 
 so, when you consider that in fog or blinding snow 
 the railroads intend that their trains shall come in on 
 time. Who ever saw " weather permitting " at the 
 head of a railroad time-table? Whatever we may 
 think as to whether it is desirable to run slower in 
 a fog, the main point is clear. The engineer at times 
 must run blind all the way. This question of run- 
 
8 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 ning blind has a most important bearing upon acci- 
 dents. In by far the greater number of collisions 
 it will be found that one engineer or the other was 
 running blind. Of course, it is perfectly obvious 
 that if the engineer, or the motorman, had seen the 
 obstruction in time to have stopped, he would have 
 stopped. He always tries hard enough. Running 
 blind, more than anything else, is the direct cause of 
 railroad and street-railway accidents. 
 
 We have then the railroads, with numerous curves 
 and grade crossings, running blind habitually, mak- 
 ing but slight use of block signals, but relying for 
 safety principally upon the train-dispatcher system, 
 a human-agency system bound sooner or later to 
 fail. In the very nature of the case, therefore, the 
 interurban roads are safer. Starting anew, and less 
 restricted in grades, they have the opportunity to 
 build with no blind curves. With blind curves 
 eliminated, on private right-of-way, and no grade 
 crossings, thoroughly protected by automatic block 
 signals, the interurban roads obviously will give a 
 higher degree of public safety than either the street 
 railways or the steam railroads. 
 
 Equally simple and axiomatic are the considera- 
 tions whereby we see that the interurban road is 
 capable of more rapid transit than the steam rail- 
 roads. Between two cities the interurban road can 
 keep more nearly a straight line. The line therefore 
 will be shorter. Greater speed is possible upon a 
 straight track than upon a track with curves. There 
 is no changing engines and taking water with electric 
 cars. They can keep going. Hence with fewer 
 miles to run, the possibility of running faster, and 
 the long stops eliminated, it is obvious that the pos- 
 sibilities of rapid transit on the interurban roads ex- 
 ceed the possibilities on the steam railroads. 
 
 With regard to progress, the interurban road is the 
 latest manifestation of progress in the use of elec- 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 9 
 
 tricity for transportation. It has established a new 
 kind of service, high-speed electric cars on private 
 right-of-way, running at frequent and regular in- 
 tervals, stopping on signal from passengers, an 
 enjoyable ride free from smoke, cinders, and dust, 
 at low rates of fare. It is the open electric car 
 versuS the hot and dusty train.. It increases the 
 facilities for inter-communication. It causes the 
 people to ride more than they formerly did, and 
 thereby itself creates the greater part of its own 
 traffic. We are just beginning to know its benefits. 
 And, if benefits more than we now can foresee do 
 not accrue, it will differ from all the progress of the 
 past, from all the openings of new fields to men's 
 activities that we have known. It is almost self- 
 evident, therefore, that the interurban road offers: 
 public safety to a greater degree than we have yet 
 known; rapid transit over and above the steam rail- 
 roads; and that it stands for the modern trend of 
 progress in transportation by electricity. 
 
 There is no doubt that the interurban service can be 
 made a great public benefit. The public demand for 
 it was demonstrated last spring before the committee 
 on street railways ( 1905) . That committee apparently 
 was unanimous in favor of an interurban road, differ- 
 ing only as to the best means of getting it. The ques- 
 tion to which I shall address myself, therefore, is not 
 so much whether the interurban type of road is de- 
 sirable, but, how may we best secure it? 
 
 Railroad and Street-Railway Laws 
 
 So far all legislation proposed has been based upon 
 the present street-railway law. The street-railway 
 committee reported last spring: 
 
 "... The only element in the ... petitions that is really 
 vital (for other positions taken at the hearings appear to 
 
10 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 have been abandoned) is the grant of the right to operate 
 electric cars on private land, and to acquire the land therefor 
 by eminent domain if necessary. With these rights given, the 
 present general street-railway laws are ample, and such rights 
 can easily be secured by the change of a few words in the 
 existing general law. . . ." Report of Committee on Street 
 Railways, May 3, 1905. Senate document No. 341, p. 3. 
 
 This, undoubtedly, is correct as regards the special 
 petitions which were before the committee. But it 
 is obvious that the interurban road, operating large 
 cars perhaps in trains of two or three, at speeds of 
 fifty and sixty miles per hour, is a railroad. And it 
 would seem, therefore, that it should come under a 
 railroad law, rather than under a street-railway law. 
 The railroad law and the street-railway law are 
 radically and fundamentally different. The street- 
 railway law stands for the accommodation of people 
 upon the streets, for the leave-at-your-door sys- 
 tem. The railroad law stands for high speed on 
 private right-of-way. The street railways are sub- 
 ject to local control. The towns can say whether or 
 not the road shall be built; what its location shall 
 be; at what speed it shall operate. The railroads are 
 subject to the control of the Board of Railroad 
 Commissioners only. Again, the right to have tracks 
 in the public streets can be withdrawn, at any time, 
 by each township. The street railways, therefore, 
 have a revokable tenure. The railroads own the land 
 upon which they run, and, therefore, have a more 
 permanent tenure. Thus we see that the street-rail- 
 way law provides for full privilege of running in 
 the streets, local control of location, local control of 
 speed, and revokable tenure of franchise. On the 
 other hand, the railroad law provides for limited 
 street privileges, control by the Board of Railroad 
 Commissioners, and ownership of right-of-way. It 
 seems logical, indeed, that the interurban railway, 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 11 
 
 striving for high speed on private right-of-way, 
 should be subject to the restrictions of the railroad 
 law and should have the privileges. But more than 
 this, I contend that an interurban law must be based 
 upon the railroad conception, rather than upon the 
 street-railway conception; that unless this is done 
 you Cannot secure public safety and rapid transit, 
 and you will place artificial restraint upon the natu- 
 ral trend of progress in electric transportation. It 
 is to this question, then, that I desire to direct your 
 special attention. 
 
 A general law for interurban railways should be 
 similar to the present railroad law. 
 
 The Street-Railway Law with Private Land 
 and Eminent Domain 
 
 If you attempt to build an interurban road under 
 the street-railway law, the first thing you must do is 
 to secure the grant of a location from each town that 
 you want to go through. Theirs is the initial author- 
 ity. Now it may happen that they will grant a loca- 
 tion in the right place; but if they do it is from 
 chance rather than from any virtue in the law. On 
 the other hand, suppose that John Doe, of Bird 
 Center, politically influential, feels that the public 
 interest will be served best if the road runs by the 
 Old Folk's Home, next to which he happens to own 
 some unimproved property. Or suppose there hap- 
 pens to be a body of citizens who insist that the road 
 shall run through Main Street. Under the street- 
 railway law the road goes where the influential citi- 
 zens of the towns demand that it shall go, or it does 
 not go at all. You have then a trade. The franchise 
 will be granted in such and such locations only. This 
 can happen in each town. The result is, curves, 
 and a longer line. It is fatal both to public safety 
 and to rapid transit. 
 
12 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 Next, these locations, when granted under the 
 street-railway law, can be revoked. (Revised Laws, 
 Chap. 112, sec. 32.) If an interurban road, running 
 on private right-of-way with overhead, crossings at 
 each street, were subject to this law, there would be 
 either the absurd possibility of revoking the right to 
 run on its own land and bridges, or it would not 
 have the street-railway characteristic of revokable 
 tenure, and would not be subject to this law. More- 
 over, uncertainty in a franchise would tend to pre- 
 vent expenditures which might be desirable for rapid 
 transit and for public safety. It is a bar to progress. 
 
 Again, under the street-railway law the towns can 
 regulate the speed of operation. This would be 
 absurd on an interurban road running on private 
 right-of-way, and might become an unwarranted in- 
 terference by one town with the rapid transit of 
 other communities. 
 
 Furthermore, the street-railway law provides full 
 privilege of running in the streets. The interurban 
 cars, large and clumsy, running perhaps in trains, 
 and capable of high speed, have no more reason to 
 be upon the streets than the cars of the steam rail- 
 roads. This does not mean that either should be 
 excluded entirely from the streets; but they should 
 be allowed upon the streets in exceptional cases only, 
 when there is a real necessity, which cannot be 
 provided .for otherwise. If the interurban roads are 
 allowed to run upon the streets as an ordinary privi- 
 lege, it is to be expected that they will take advan- 
 tage of it; and then we shall have high-speed cars 
 running back and forth between the street and pri- 
 vate right-of-way. Such a road inevitably must con- 
 tain numerous curves, highway crossings and half 
 crossings, and in fact all the elements which are fatal 
 to public safety, and which render rapid transit 
 impossible. 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 13 
 
 Thus we see that the fundamental principles of the 
 street-railway law, cars running upon the streets, 
 control of original location by the towns, regulation 
 of speed by the towns, revokable tenure, when ap- 
 plied to a high-speed road, are incompatible with 
 public safety and rapid transit, and are an unwar- 
 ranted restraint upon progress. The street-railway 
 law, therefore, modified or stretched by private-land 
 privileges and eminent domain to cover high-speed 
 cars, becomes illogical and pernicious. 
 
 The Street- Rail way Law with Private Land 
 but not Eminent Domain 
 
 But if an open and, direct application of the street- 
 railway law to the interurban road is so ill suited to 
 the public good, what shall we say of that other 
 measure, known in the last legislature as the " little 
 bill," namely, Private Land for Street Railways, 
 without eminent domain? (1905. Senate bill No. 
 338.) Ostensibly it grants to street railways simply 
 a slight increase in the private land privileges which 
 they have already. In reality, it would have little or 
 no application to existing street railways, but would 
 allow future street railways to attempt interurban 
 construction. In reality, it is an interurban measure. 
 In the absence of a better law it would promptly be 
 used for interurban roads. A railway built under 
 such a measure might become a poor imitation of 
 an interurban road. For without the right of emi- 
 nent domain they could condemn no land; and their 
 line must twist and turn to conform to land that 
 would be sold freely. If an obstinate owner blocks 
 them, they must come to the legislature for a special 
 right to condemn. Public safety and rapid transit 
 would become a farce on such a line. This bill so 
 far has met so little opposition that it has been called 
 the " path of least resistance." The reason for this 
 
14 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 lack of opposition seems to be that it would be of 
 the least service to the people, and so would cause 
 the railroads the least annoyance from competition. 
 On railways which are not yet built it would seem 
 inexcusable to allow such premeditated disregard for 
 the public demand for rapid transit, and incidentally 
 for public safety. For all future roads, therefore, 
 we should have some law other than this. 
 
 Lest there be in your minds any doubt whether 
 such a law as this " little bill " is desirable on account 
 of the existing street railways, let us consider for a 
 moment what the existing street railways really need, 
 and what is their place in the general interurban 
 problem. We will distinguish sharply then between 
 street railways now built, which we already have 
 on our hands, and street railways which may be 
 built in the future. 
 
 Street-Railway Conditions 
 
 There is no doubt that the outlying street railways 
 of this State are in poor condition. In 1900, I 
 showed (The Financier, supplement, Dec. 3, 1900) 
 that if a rational method of bookkeeping be applied, 
 the street railways of Massachusetts were not doing 
 as well as they appeared to be. Out of sixty-nine 
 road,s, other than the Boston Elevated, report- 
 ing for the year 1899, thirty-six paid dividends. Of 
 the thirty-six that paid dividends only five earned 
 what they paid, and thirteen paid dividends although 
 earning nothing, according to the method of figuring 
 which I fully explained. The situation to-day seems 
 to be worse than in 1899. The Railroad Commis- 
 sioners this year, in commenting on street-railway 
 conditions, make the following statement: 
 
 "... In such cases [the poorer roads] the future prom- 
 ises as possible events: the acceptance of an unsatisfactory 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 15 
 
 service as better than nothing ; an increase in fares ; or the 
 abandonment of the railway. . . . " R. R. Com. Report, 
 1905, p. 6. 
 
 What the street railways need, of course, is to induce 
 more people to ride. To accomplish this they must 
 reach more people, and carry them in such a manner 
 that they will be inclined to ride. In order to see 
 how this may be done, let us consider what lines of 
 development are possible for the existing street 
 railways. 
 
 Street railways are now conceived officially as 
 improved omnibuses. The Special Commission of 
 1898 reported :- 
 
 "... the street cars being nothing more or less than an 
 improved omnibus, and the tramway a special feature in 
 the pavement of the public way. . . . This is all that the 
 street railway was fifty years ago, when first laid ; it is all it 
 is now, an improved line of omnibuses, running over a spe- 
 cial pavement. If this fact be fairly grasped and borne con- 
 stantly in mind, the discussion of the principles underlying it 
 is greatly simplified. The analogy throughout is with the 
 omnibus line, and not with the railroad train ; with the public 
 thoroughfare, and not with the private right-of-way." 
 Report of Special Commission, February, 1898. House docu- 
 ment No. 475, p. 11. 
 
 The analogy, then, is with the omnibus line, as distinct 
 from the railroad. The street railways are intended 
 to accommodate, primarily, people upon the high- 
 ways. Under this conception they must look to the 
 building up of the suburbs for their increase in 
 receipts. They must induce people to settle along 
 their line. This is the basis of the street-railway 
 laws, and the present official State attitude. In dis- 
 cussing types, this conception might well be distin- 
 guished as the " Omnibus Line." 
 
 But it is obvious that this conception does not 
 represent the electric-railway conditions as they actu- 
 
16 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 ally exist to-day. The street railways correspond 
 more nearly to railroads than they do to an omnibus 
 line. Their right to run on private land might be 
 extended, in order that they may become a combina- 
 tion of a railroad and an omnibus line. This would 
 result in higher speed on individual lines, and by 
 extensions and combinations with other roads a rail- 
 way system could be built up by which each road 
 would reach a larger population. The running time 
 on the roads would be somewhat shortened, of course, 
 but the saving in time would not be proportional to 
 the high speed of the cars. It would not be rapid 
 transit, but high-speed cars with slow running time. 
 On such a road, or system of roads, there would be 
 inevitably numerous danger points at which it would 
 be necessary for public safety to establish " stop 
 posts." In fact, this would be such a characteristic 
 feature of this type of road, that it might well be 
 distinguished as the " Danger Post Road." If the 
 street railways were destined to develop into rail- 
 roads of the interurban type, this would be the 
 transition stage. 
 
 Again, the street railways might be owned by the 
 steam railroads, and become feeders to them. If the 
 cars ran simply to the railroad stations, there would 
 be no appreciable difference from the present; but 
 to suggest the railroad ownership, this might be called 
 the " Depot Wagon System." If the street railways 
 were owned, by the steam roads, and the street cars 
 were run actually onto the steam-railroad tracks, and 
 thence to the larger centres of population, they 
 would become, and might well be distinguished as, 
 " Branches to the Steam Roads." 
 
 Similarly, the street railways might become branches 
 to high-speed interurban roads. In this case the street 
 cars would run to the interurban road, and thence at 
 a higher speed to the larger centres of population. 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 17 
 
 This might be called, " Branches to the Interurban 
 Roads." 
 
 We have, then, five distinct lines of development 
 for the street railways : 
 
 1. They may remain an " Omnibus Line," and 
 grow up with the country. 
 
 2. They may become a combination of an omnibus 
 line and a railroad, running intermittently upon pri- 
 vate right-of-way, a " Danger Post Road." 
 
 3. They may be owned by the steam railroads and 
 become a " Depot Wagon System." 
 
 4. They may become " Branches to the Steam 
 Railroads." 
 
 5. They may become " Branches to the Interurban 
 Roads." 
 
 In regard to the "Omnibus Line " conception, it 
 is obvious that to remain simply an omnibus line and 
 wait for the population to increase presents slight 
 attractions. 
 
 Suppose the street railways were given the, right 
 to run on private land, for the purpose of making 
 greater speed by becoming a road running partly 
 upon the streets and partly upon private right-of- 
 way, with the danger points protected by stop 
 posts, a "Danger Post Road," -let us see to 
 what extent they would be benefited. The street 
 railways, as they exist to-day, are loaded with danger 
 points. These occur principally in the form of blind 
 curves, where the motorman's vision is so obscured 
 that he cannot see ahead to a distance in which it is 
 reasonable to expect him to stop his car without fail. 
 But under the street-railway law as it exists to-day 
 much of this can be corrected. The street railways 
 have the right to use private land, 
 
 "... for the purpose of avoiding grades or curves in a 
 public street or way, and for such other purpose incidental 
 
18 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 to the use of the streets, as the railroad commissioners may 
 approve. . . ." Revised Laws, Chap. 112, sec. 9. 
 
 or, 
 
 "... to avoid dangerous curves or grades existing in the 
 highways, or for other similar purposes incident to and not 
 inconsistent with its corporate franchise of operating a rail- 
 way to accommodate public travel in public ways." Acts of 
 1903, Chap. 476, sec. 1. 
 
 Street railways, therefore, can eliminate their danger 
 points by using private land. So far as the use of 
 private land will give them a safer line, they can 
 have it. For public safety, private land is allowed 
 to-day; for high speed, not unless it is incidental to 
 the use of the streets. 
 
 Now, after the street railways have taken full 
 advantage of the law as it exists to-day, and have 
 used private land for eliminating their danger points 
 as far as it is possible to do so, what then will be 
 their further use 'for private right-of-way? Is it to 
 relocate, or to extend? If the existing street railways 
 should relocate any considerable portion of their track 
 on private land, it would be a duplication of their 
 investment. On the city street railways it would not 
 be practical anyway. On the country street railways 
 the population they serve is not sufficient to support 
 their present investment. It is doubtful whether they 
 could dispose of the securities for duplicating the 
 investment. Also, how are they going to obtain the 
 additional securities? Suppose the people who have 
 established their homes along the line, because of the 
 accommodations it offered, should object to its re- 
 moval. There is no probability that the existing 
 street railways will relocate their tracks to any 
 greater extent than is necessary for public safety. 
 Neither will there be any general extending of street- 
 railway tracks. Each road is not going to extend 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 19 
 
 through the territory of some other road. In making 
 combinations with other roads, there would be no oc- 
 casion to extend for connections, because they already 
 connect. But however you may look at it, an exten- 
 sion is new track ; and there is no reason why new track 
 should not be laid properly. The only reason for tol- 
 erating the existing street-railway conditions is, that 
 the tracks are down and the roads are too poor to 
 improve them. If greater safety can be secured under 
 a different law, why should they not form new organ- 
 izations for extensions ? As a matter of fact, for prac- 
 tical reasons, street railways have been extended in 
 any length, always by forming new companies. It is 
 not apparent, therefore, where any greater privilege 
 in the use of private land, than they now have, will be 
 of any real benefit to the existing street railways. 
 
 On the other hand, such a law means, that through 
 the territory of existing street railways new railways 
 could, be built of the " Danger Post " type, with 
 high-speed cars and slow-running time, and this 
 would be a most serious injury to them. It would 
 take away their prospect of reaching more people by 
 a service that would induce them to ride. The salva- 
 tion of the street railways lies in connecting with a 
 railway that will give genuine rapid transit to the 
 large cities. By such means their cars could be taken 
 from some point on their line and carried rapidly to 
 the larger centres of population. Probably it is not 
 practical to run the street cars over the tracks of the 
 steam railroads. But over the interurban roads it 
 would be practical. The real prospect, therefore, for 
 the outlying street railways, lies in the development 
 of genuine rapid transit by the interurban road. 
 They should become " Branches to the Interurban 
 Roads." In this way they would reach a larger 
 population, and give them a service sufficiently quick 
 to induce them to ride. To aid the existing street 
 
20 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 railways, therefore, we must look for other means 
 than a law giving them a private land privilege of 
 no use to them, but which might be used by new 
 roads of the " Danger Post " type, greatly to their 
 detriment. 
 
 Street- Rail way Accidents 
 
 But aside from the effect upon the railways, the 
 effect upon the safety of the public should determine 
 against allowing street railways to use private land 
 indiscriminately for the purpose of securing greater 
 speed. A change in the law, which will not result in 
 greater safety and tend to reduce the accidents which 
 are occurring, cannot be considered otherwise than 
 harmful, not only to the interests of the people, but 
 to the real interests of the street-railway companies, 
 as well. For purposes of public safety the street 
 railways now have greater privilege in private land 
 than they possibly can use. The purpose of extend- 
 ing this privilege is for still greater speed. Let us 
 see, then, what has been the effect upon the accident 
 record of increasing street-railway speeds. 
 
 There have been two definite periods when the 
 speed of the street cars has been increased. The first 
 period is marked by the change from horse cars to 
 electric cars. When the horse cars were sufficiently 
 out of the way, the higher speed of the electric cars 
 prevailed. The change began in 1888, and in 1894 
 the operation was about nine-tenths electric. The 
 second increase in speed took place when the electric 
 roads extended their service to the outlying cities, and 
 began to run through cars and to use the large cars 
 of the interurban type equipped with four motors. 
 The " four-motor equipments," which really mark 
 this period, were put upon the market by the big 
 manufacturing companies in about the year 1898. 
 A circular of the General Electric Company in 1901 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 
 
 21 
 
 (Bulletin, No. 4255) shows the roads using them. 
 The four-motor equipment of itself signifies high 
 speed. It was built at first for 140-horsepower and 
 a speed of about 35 miles per hour; then for 200- 
 horsepower and a speed of about 45 miles per hour; 
 and now for 500-horsepower and a speed of 60 to 70 
 miles per hour. A general effort for high speed 
 accompanied this interurban development. Anyone 
 who has been a frequent passenger in the street cars 
 undoubtedly has noticed these two periods of in- 
 creased speed from ordinary observation. 
 
 Now each of these efforts for higher speed has 
 been accompanied by an increase in the accident rate. 
 Plate I. 1 shows the accidents that have occurred on 
 
 I 1 The curves in Plate I. and Plate II. are plotted from these figures, from 
 the Massachusetts Railroad Commissioner's reports: 
 
 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS 
 
 
 STEAM 
 
 
 XT' 
 
 RAILR'D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 YEAR 
 
 ACCI- 
 DENTS 
 
 ACCI- 
 DENTS 
 
 MILES 
 MAIN 
 TRACK 
 
 ACCIDENT 
 RATE 
 PER MILE 
 
 PASSEN- 
 GERS* 
 
 ACCIDENT 
 RATE PER 
 PASSENGER 
 
 1887 
 
 802 
 
 131 
 
 470 
 
 0.28 
 
 125 million 
 
 1.05 X 10- 
 
 1888 
 
 782 
 
 227 
 
 534 
 
 0.43 
 
 134 " 
 
 1.69 " 
 
 1889 
 
 652 
 
 357 
 
 574 
 
 0.62 
 
 148 
 
 2.41 
 
 1890 
 
 830 
 
 372 
 
 612 
 
 0.61 
 
 165 " 
 
 2.26 " 
 
 1891 
 
 826 
 
 409 
 
 672 
 
 0.61 
 
 176 
 
 2.32 " 
 
 1892 
 
 1,100 
 
 610 
 
 755 
 
 0.81 
 
 194 
 
 3.14 " 
 
 1893 
 
 1,451 
 
 585 
 
 874 
 
 0.67 
 
 214 
 
 2.74 " 
 
 1894 
 
 1,115 
 
 1,341 
 
 929 
 
 1.45 
 
 220 
 
 6.10 " 
 
 1895 
 
 981 
 
 1,507 
 
 1,078 
 
 1.40 
 
 260 
 
 5.80 " 
 
 18% 
 
 1,025 
 
 1,766 
 
 1,277 
 
 1.38 
 
 292 
 
 6.05 " 
 
 1897 
 
 919 
 
 2,066 
 
 1,414 
 
 1.47 
 
 309 
 
 6.71 " 
 
 1898 
 
 1,077 
 
 2,213 
 
 1,537 
 
 1.44 
 
 331 
 
 6.68 " 
 
 1899 
 
 1,072 
 
 2,488 
 
 1,734 
 
 1.44 
 
 357 
 
 6.96 " 
 
 1900 
 
 927 
 
 2,604 
 
 1,913 
 
 1.36 
 
 395 
 
 6.60 " 
 
 1901 
 
 611 
 
 2,533 
 
 2,177 
 
 1.17 
 
 434 
 
 5.83 " 
 
 1902 
 
 906 
 
 4,253 
 
 2,444 
 
 1.74 
 
 465 
 
 9.15 " 
 
 1903 
 
 841 
 
 3,974 
 
 2,523 
 
 1.57 
 
 505 
 
 7.86 " 
 
 1904 
 
 862 
 
 5,078 
 
 2,575 
 
 1.97 
 
 520 
 
 9.79 " 
 
 * Really the number of 5^ fares collected. 
 
PLATE I 
 
 STREET RAILWAY ACCIDENTS 
 
 IN MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 STREET 
 RAILWAY 
 
 RAILROAD 
 
 YEAR 
 
 Red Line shows RAILROAD Accidents 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 23 
 
 the street railways in Massachusetts, and also on the 
 steam railroads, for each year since the horse-car 
 period 1888. It will be observed that the number 
 of injuries on street railways has been increasing 
 steadily, and has now reached a very high point. But 
 the most conspicuous feature of the curve is the 
 sudden increase in street-railway accidents that has 
 taken place at two periods. In 1894 the number of 
 accidents jumped up and stayed up. Then in 1902 
 a similar jump occurred. This characteristic stands 
 out plainly in Plate II., which shows the accident 
 rate for street railways in Massachusetts for each 
 year since the horse-car period. In this plate both the 
 accident rate per mile and the accident rate per pas- 
 senger are shown. Whether we consider the accidents 
 on the basis of the number of miles of track, or on 
 the basis of the number of passengers carried, the 
 characteristic feature is the same. There have been 
 two jumps in the accident rate. And these two jumps 
 coincide with the two general efforts which have been 
 made for high speed on street railways. Is it neces- 
 sary to show more plainly the utter recklessness of 
 allowing another effort for increased speed on street 
 railways, whether wholly upon the streets, or partly 
 upon the streets? We should aid them to remove their 
 existing 'danger points, not to secure more. 
 
 No doubt, the existing street railways need help. 
 But so, too, do the people need help to protect them 
 from any more street railways like those we now 
 have. This question appeals to me largely upon the 
 personal side. It is my experience that, to a small 
 boy few delights surpass riding in the trolley cars. 
 We are bound to use the street railways for ourselves 
 and our children. It is our right that we should be 
 able to do so without apprehension. And knowing 
 the street-railway situation as I do, it is my duty, to 
 myself and to others, to put this situation clearly 
 
& 
 
 a 
 u 
 
 5 
 
 PLATE II 
 
 ACCIDENT RATE 
 
 * On Street Railways in Massachusetts 
 
 1 2 
 
 PER MILE 
 
 OF TRACK 
 
 PER 
 PASSENGER 
 
 YEAR 
 
 Note: For actual rate multiply column 1 by 0.1, and 
 column 2 by 10' 6 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 25 
 
 before you, in order that you may consider it from 
 the point of view of those who must ride in the cars. 
 What does it matter that the interests of a few syn- 
 dicates may be affected one way or the other, what 
 do we care for our own business interests if our chil- 
 dren be among the next five thousand injured? What 
 interest can the State have greater than this? The 
 treatment of this question as a balancing of the 
 special interests of railroads, of street railways, of 
 syndicates, etc., should cease and the entire effort of 
 the Legislature should be to reduce at once, by radical 
 steps if necessary, the present accident rate ; and then 
 to insure that no more street railways like those we 
 now have shall be built. We are in a bad position 
 to-day with regard to our street railways. Let us 
 first alleviate the present condition as best we may, 
 and then prevent absolutely the same condition from 
 arising again. 
 
 Therefore, let us give the street railways the right 
 of eminent domain, in order that there may be no 
 obstacle to their securing safer lines by using the 
 private land privileges which they now have. They 
 may have it now, but let there be no doubt about it. 
 More than this, insist that they shall exercise the 
 rights they now have for securing safer lines, or that 
 they shall reduce their speed. Insist that their track 
 shall be kept up, and their equipment improved. 
 Allow them to capitalize freely such public safety 
 improvements. And give the Railroad Commis- 
 sioners the right to enforce their orders through the 
 Courts, by enjoining the roads from operating, if nec- 
 essary. But for the Legislature to pass a law, ex- 
 tending the private land privileges of street railways, 
 which not only would countenance the present con- 
 ditions, but would encourage more roads of the same 
 kind, and a still further effort for high speed, 
 would be, to place private and corporate interests 
 
 . 
 
 OF THE A 
 
 f UNIVERSITY \ 
 
26 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 above that consideration which the people have the 
 right to expect for their safety and well-being. 
 
 The Proper Law for High-Speed Railways 
 
 If it is not possible, therefore, to obtain the greatest 
 public safety, genuine rapid transit, and a fruitful 
 field for progress, under a street-railway law, let us 
 see what are the elements that we do need in an inter- 
 urban law to secure these results. The interurban 
 road will differ from the best constructed street rail- 
 ways of to-day, principally in keeping its track as 
 straight as possible. The construction need not be 
 any more expensive than on the best street railways 
 with the grade crossings eliminated. In fact, the 
 straighter the track, the fewer miles there are to build. 
 The cars need not run any faster than it is profitable 
 to have them. But in keeping the track straight, more 
 than in anything else, lies the greatest public safety, 
 and the greatest possibilities of rapid transit. 
 
 The street-railway tracks, as we have seen, are con- 
 trolled in alignment by our crooked streets, and by the 
 rival demands of local town factions. To keep 
 straight, the interurban roads must be free from both. 
 First, then, they must run on private right-of-way. 
 But the straight-line principle can be ruined by one 
 obstinate owner. Hence, second, the interurban roads 
 must have the right of eminent domain. The third 
 element, equally fundamental in securing a straight 
 line, is freedom from local control. Local control 
 allows the whole question of public safety and rapid 
 transit, and the interests of a larger community, to 
 hang upon a trade with the officials of the towns. The 
 alignment of the road then ceases to be an engineering 
 problem, but is determined by the caprice of local sen- 
 timent, local politics, or perhaps less worthy means of 
 effecting a trade. The real interests of the towns are 
 protected by the Board of Railroad Commissioners; 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 27 
 
 and the interests of the residential sections and the 
 larger estates, usually in the minority, are better pro- 
 tected by a State Board. The interurban roads, there- 
 fore, should be subject to the control of the Board of 
 Railroad Commissioners only. Fourth, it is absurd 
 that an interurban road should not have a tenure on 
 its own land and over its own bridges equal to that of 
 the railroads. Fifth, the use of the streets should be 
 limited to exceptional cases only. These, then, are the 
 cardinal points of an interurban law, for public safety 
 and rapid transit: private right-of-way, eminent do- 
 main, control by State board only, tenure not revok- 
 able, limited rights on the streets. 
 
 But in addition to these points, an interurban law 
 must include, sooner or later, certain other elements, 
 on account of public policy or public convenience. 
 They must have the right to carry freight. This would 
 be no material detriment to the steam railroads because 
 the interurban roads could make but little use of it. 
 It would be an obligation as much as a privilege. 
 There would be no competition for freight. There 
 is no prospect that long freight trains can ever be 
 hauled as economically by electricity as by steam. The 
 long freight trains could not be hauled over the grades 
 that would occur upon a properly constructed inter- 
 urban road. Moreover, the control of the steam rail- 
 roads is so concentrated that it would not be possible 
 for a new railway to secure any participation in the 
 through freight business. There is nothing in a 
 general freight business for the interurban roads. 
 But, on the other hand, the people should have the 
 right to insist that their freight be taken and deliv- 
 ered at the nearest practical point. And if this 
 happens to be on the tracks of an interurban road, 
 why should not the merchant have the right to demand 
 that his goods be delivered here at the same freight 
 rate, thereby saving his haul. As soon as a suffi- 
 
28 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 ciently aggravated case arises, he will apply for 
 special legislation and no doubt will get it. The 
 privilege or obligation, as you choose to call it, to 
 carry freight should be a part of an interurban law. 
 So too with personal baggage. If the people are to 
 travel long distances on the interurban roads, sooner 
 or later their trunks must be carried. This presents 
 no difficulties in practical operation, only an ordi- 
 nary problem to solve. Mail and express are now 
 carried by the street railways. They all should be 
 included in an interurban law. Likewise, in organi- 
 zation, capitalization, corporate functions, responsi- 
 bility for damages and legal actions, relation to labor, 
 etc., whatever may be wise and in accord with the 
 best public policy, should apply to interurban roads. 
 Also should be included the general discretionary 
 powers of the Railroad Commissioners on matters of 
 safety, of public health and convenience: such as 
 brakes, sanders, couplers, whistles and bells, safety 
 devices, shelters, conveniences, ventilation, heating, 
 and in general all the details. 
 
 The elements that are needed, then in an interurban 
 law, for the best public interest, are: private right- 
 of-way, eminent domain, control by Railroad Com- 
 missioners only, tenure not revokable, limited street 
 rights, freight, personal baggage, mail and express, 
 discretionary powers of the Railroad Commissioners 
 on details, and the obligations and restrictions usually 
 applicable to public-service corporations. And it is 
 only through a law having these characteristics that 
 the best interests of the public in public safety, 
 rapid transit, and progress will be obtained. What 
 is this but the general railroad law as it exists to-day? 
 It is as close as is within my power to describe it. 
 Therefore, provide a railroad law that shall be suited 
 best for railroads in general, and you will have the 
 proper interurban law. 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 29 
 
 Railroad Monopoly 
 
 But if you desire to secure the public benefits that 
 the interurban roads will give, it is not sufficient 
 simply to provide the wording of a rational law. 
 The intention of the Legislature must be clear, other- 
 wise the words may result in nothing. In fact, this 
 is what would be most likely to happen. We have 
 in Massachusetts a State policy toward railroads, and 
 other public-service corporations, which is known as 
 " Monopoly with State supervision." The State sup- 
 ports monopoly and supervises it. The railroad 
 monopoly which has been built up in Massachusetts 
 has been aided by this State policy. Now if the in- 
 terurban roads are built under a railroad law the 
 present railroad monopoly may be upset. Therefore, 
 the intention of the Legislature should be clear. The 
 State's policy should be reaffirmed or revised. 
 
 The obvious query is : Why, in times when monopoly 
 seems rampant and uncontrollable, does Massachu- 
 setts actively protect it? Why this State aid? The 
 origin of the idea of monopoly with State supervi- 
 sion lay in a laudable attempt to prevent the abuse 
 of capital pow r er. Practices, such as railroad wreck- 
 ing, that is, starting to build a new railroad directly 
 parallel to an established line, for the purpose of 
 ruining it and forcing its sale, were methods of 
 competition which were used in the past by the 
 powerful capitalists of New York, notably, Jay 
 Gould. It was to protect our domestic railroad cor- 
 porations from unscrupulous outside competition that 
 the State's aid was first granted. It was to prevent 
 the wasteful duplication of investment resulting there- 
 from that the public would have to support. No 
 doubt it has been of great public service. No doubt 
 it has prevented wasteful duplication. 
 
 But on the other hand, the State has lost from 
 
30 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 monopoly as well as gained. Our loss is the lack of 
 the stimulus to please which comes with competition. 
 We do not begin to have the railroad service in 
 Massachusetts that we find in other States where there 
 is competition. We are a decade behind them. Our 
 finest electric-lighted trains, recently established, are 
 but the counterpart of trains in the West in which 
 I rode as long ago as 1893. New England is used 
 as a region where more work can be gotten out of 
 cars that will no longer attract trade in the West. 
 Here, the people ride in such cars as the railroads 
 choose to run, or they do not ride at all. Old cars, 
 slow trains, long waits for connections, venerable 
 railroad restaurants, and other antiquated things, are 
 characteristics of New England railroad service. 
 The stimulus to please, which competition brings, is 
 lacking. Progress is stagnant. Thus has the State 
 paid. 
 
 Whether we have gained on the whole more than 
 we have lost may be a matter of opinion. But it 
 must be obvious to everybody, however, that the con- 
 ditions have changed since the time when supervised 
 monopoly originated. When there were many inde- 
 pendent roads there was no occasion for apprehen- 
 sion that more might not come when needed. There 
 is to-day no prospect of more steam railroads. The 
 control of the railroads throughout the country is so 
 closely held that it would not be possible for a new 
 steam railroad to secure the freight connections neces- 
 sary to make the enterprise profitable. The concen- 
 tration of railroad control is increasing each year. 
 Furthermore, the appreciation of land values in the 
 cities has made the expense of terminal facilities pro- 
 hibitory. So has the railroads' position strengthened. 
 Moreover the need for monopoly has changed. It 
 is just as desirable as it ever was that the money 
 intended for public service should not be used for 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 31 
 
 unnecessary and wasteful purposes. But all compe- 
 tition does not produce wasteful duplication. And 
 in excluding competition that does produce wasteful 
 duplication, it is not necessary to foster monopoly by 
 excluding all competition. But when the State's 
 policy of Monopoly was originated, there were in 
 Massachusetts a number of small railroads; and it 
 was undoubtedly the intention to protect them from 
 the aggressions of unscrupulous capital. Then, our 
 railroads were owned and controlled at home. Now, 
 while the nominal ownership can be variously figured, 
 it is common knowledge that our railroads are con- 
 trolled in New York. The men who control them 
 are the large capitalists of to-day. They are the 
 ones who have arisen to take the place of the very 
 men against whose power this policy was originated. 
 So it has come about that under the guise of pre- 
 venting wasteful competition the State now is aiding 
 the Morgans, the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers in 
 their monopolies. Thus have the conditions changed. 
 But notwithstanding the enormous power that the 
 railroads have acquired, and the enormous capital 
 power with which they are allied, they are ever zeal- 
 ous to guard what they have now come to consider 
 as a vested right, the State's aid in their monopoly. 
 They consider that the transportation business be- 
 longs to them. And the development of electric 
 roads always unpopular with the railroads, in pro- 
 portion to its popularity with the people has now 
 reached a point to wit, the prospect of interurban 
 roads warranting strenuous measures. So the rail- 
 roads are now before you with a proposition which 
 virtually means the extension of their monopoly to 
 the electric railways. It is this: Why should not the 
 Boston and Maine Railroad, a domestic corporation, 
 be allowed to do what other railroads, foreign corpo- 
 rations, actually are doing in this State, namely, own 
 
32 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 street railways? Not that the Boston and Maine has 
 any particular street railway in mind that it wants to 
 own, but as an abstract proposition, Why not? Of 
 course, nothing could be fairer. But only slightly 
 less apparent, there lies in this proposition a meaning 
 not so reasonable. It says in effect : We would like 
 to have the State, out of sympathy for its own cor- 
 poration, domestic at least in form, legalize the other 
 railroads in their ownership of street railways, so that 
 there may be no doubt about it; and then, by secur- 
 ing a few street railways as strategic points, and 
 relying upon the State's policy of monopoly, thus 
 given added, sanction, we shall be able to prevent any 
 further competition from electric railways, and espe- 
 cially from the interurban roads. All future electric 
 railway development would be subject thereby to their 
 pleasure. This proposition seems to offer a more ade- 
 quate reason for the strenuous effort which we have 
 seen, than the abstract idea first stated. 
 
 Now if the State, in this indirect manner or other- 
 wise, extends the railroad monopoly at the expense of 
 the interurban roads, we shall pay for monopoly far 
 more than, through the lack of the stimulus of com- 
 petition, we have already paid. It would be, virtu- 
 ally throwing away the opportunities for public 
 safety, rapid transit, and the general public good, 
 which the interurban road offers. Progress on the 
 electric railways would be brought into the same 
 stagnant condition as progress on the steam railroads 
 in this State. 
 
 The case of the interurban road is analogous to the 
 electric light, or to the telephone. It would have been 
 a great public misfortune if electric lighting had been 
 suppressed in the interest of Gas Companies which 
 furnished public lighting. It would have been a 
 great public misfortune if the telephone had been 
 suppressed just because the Telegraph Companies 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 33 
 
 transmitted messages over wires. And so it will be 
 a great public misfortune if the interurban railways 
 are suppressed just because the railroads are furnish- 
 ing transportation over steel rails. In each case, 
 through the natural trend of progress, a new kind 
 of public service developed. The interurban road 
 now offers a different kind of transportation. It is 
 absurd to say that the interurban roads will simply 
 divide the business of the steam railroads. If the 
 tracks of the electric railway between Boston and 
 Worcester were suddenly taken away, would their 
 several million passengers be transferred to the steam 
 railroad? Of course not. The great mass of them 
 would not ride. They did not ride before the elec- 
 tric road was built. Neither has this traffic been taken 
 from the street railways. Nine-tenths of it is new 
 traffic created by giving the people more opportuni- 
 ties for riding. The attorney for the Boston and 
 Maine Railroad argues : 
 
 "... Now, whether there shall be a duplication or redupli- 
 cation of capitalization for the purpose of serving the same 
 public with the same roads, merely dividing the business, is 
 a question . . . " l 
 
 1 Extract from stenographic report, Vol. 3, pp. 142-143. Hearing on Rail- 
 road and Street Railway Laws, before Joint Special Committee July 18-19, 
 1905. 
 
 MR. COOLIDGE. ... It seems to us that the law should be fixed, and that 
 the question of public convenience and necessity should be passed upon by 
 the Railroad Commissioners. It is undoubtedly true that there probably is 
 no local authority that will not say, if anybody wants to .build another road, 
 that they can have the chance. If any rival road desires to cut into an 
 existing street railway's business, there probably is no local authority that 
 would not say : Come in, and we will give you a chance. And if there were 
 two roads, there would be a chance to get a third. Now, whether there shall 
 be a duplication or reduplication of capitalization for the purpose of serving 
 the same public with the same roads, merely dividing the business, is a 
 question which it seems to us has now got to the point where the legislature 
 might wisely say that the Railroad Commissioners should first pass upon the 
 necessity for any more street railway accommodations, or any more railroad 
 accommodations. If there is a necessity, then an existing company ought, 
 if it can, to have the chance of providing those accommodations ; if there is 
 no necessity, then the existing company ought not to be compelled to divide 
 
34 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 Such an argument is too fatuous for the intelligence 
 of the ordinary jury, and that it should be advanced 
 before a legislative committee is amazing. 
 
 The real menace of the railroads to public service 
 lies not so much in the fact that their service is poorer 
 here than elsewhere, for that they can remedy by 
 improving their service; but rather it lies in their 
 attitude toward the interurban road, and in their evi- 
 dent desire to suppress the natural development of 
 electric railways. When they take the attitude that 
 the transportation business belongs to them, and con- 
 sider the development of electric railways an invasion 
 of their rights, they become an obstruction in the path 
 of progress as much as ever were the old stage coaches 
 when they opposed the building of the railroads. The 
 same arguments that we hear now by the railroads 
 would have applied equally well to the stage coaches, 
 and, no doubt, were used at that time. It is notorious 
 that by means of their purchases of street railways, 
 by means of their control of financial institutions, by 
 means of the financial power with which they are 
 allied, by means of their influence in Legislatures, the 
 railroads are out to fight any development that may 
 give rise to competition in the transportation busi- 
 ness. They employ a corps of attorneys for this 
 special purpose. Their attitude that the transporta- 
 tion business belongs to them is presented clearly 
 
 the business which it may be doing reasonably satisfactorily with somebody 
 else who desires to get into the territory, either for the purpose of running 
 the road afterwards, which is not usually the case, or of selling the road 
 afterwards to the existing company. And we think the law should be fixed 
 so that that section of the statutes should provide first that there should be a 
 hearing before the Railroad Commissioners for them to pass upon the ques- 
 tion whether there is a public convenience and necessity for any more road ; 
 if they say there is, that then the question should go to the local authorities 
 for them, if they can, to fix a route ; if they cannot, then the Railroad Com- 
 missioners should have the power to fix the route after the local authorities 
 have tried, within three months or six months, or some other length of time 
 that may be fixed. In the railroad law it is three months ; and then it al- 
 lows the Railroad Commissioners to fix that route for the railroad if the local 
 authorities have not fixed it 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 35 
 
 enough by their principal spokesman, the attorney for 
 the domestic corporation, the Boston and Maine. 
 Several times he has laid down specifically the line 
 of action that the railroads expect from the State; 
 substantially thus: If the people think they need any 
 more transportation, let them prove it; and then if 
 it really is a public necessity, the railroads should 
 be allowed to provide the service, if they want to; 
 and if they don't want to, then somebody else may. 
 What could be plainer? The transportation business 
 belongs to us. It is our privilege to give the people 
 what transportation they need. The custodianship of 
 the people's needs implied in this attitude of the rail- 
 roads reminds one of Mr. Baer, of coal-strike fame, 
 with this difference: Mr. Baer applied his principle 
 of Divine Right to his employees only. " The Chris- 
 tian gentlemen, in whose care the Lord in His in- 
 finite wisdom has placed the coal properties, will see 
 that their employees are properly provided for." The 
 railroad beneficence takes in the whole public. If 
 the people need any more transportation it is our 
 privilege to supply it, if they can prove it, and if we 
 want to. This is a guardianship at will, indeed. For 
 whatever gain there has been from monopoly the 
 people have paid well, and will pay more if mo- 
 nopoly is extended. Is, then, the railroads' claim to 
 State aid in their monopoly justified? Perhaps the 
 comment of Mr. Hapgood, recently in Collier's, may 
 illuminate this point : 
 
 "... A railway is a thing peculiarly requiring regula- 
 tion. It ought to be a monopoly to prevent wasteful duplica- 
 tion, and yet unless there is competition the roads will treat the 
 people like so much dirt. Compare the rival services between 
 Chicago and New York with the performances of a fat monop- 
 oly like the Boston and Maine, which owns legislatures and 
 with impunity maltreats the public in every known way. ..." 
 Collier's, July 15, 1905, p. 6. 
 
36 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 Railroad monopoly in Massachusetts distinctly has 
 outlived its usefulness. 
 
 But if we are to revise our policy of monopoly, 
 what shall it be? Unrestrained competition offers 
 corresponding opportunities for abuse. What we 
 really want in our railways is the greatest progress. 
 If there is a public need, let the people prove it. 
 That is monopoly, and progress becomes stagnant. 
 Competition searches out a public need and proves it 
 to the people. And the result is progress. We want 
 the stimulus of competition, but not its destructive 
 methods, and not its wasteful duplication. We want 
 to encourage all honest industry. Let the State then 
 encourage all honest industry, and protect it from the 
 abuse of capital power, whether it be from excessive 
 competition, or from excessive monopoly. Let the 
 State intercede, through its police power, to prevent 
 wasteful competition, railroad, wrecking, rate wars, 
 rebates, and like abuses. But let us have a sufficient 
 honest competition in our railways to give us progress, 
 at least equal to the progress that we see around us. 
 Let us have Competition with State Supervision. By 
 such definition of the State's policy hangs the fate 
 of the interurban roads under a railroad law. 
 
 We have now been over at some length the main 
 features of the interurban railway, and the relation 
 of the railroad and street-railway laws to it. The in- 
 terurban road, running straight and free from blind 
 curves, offers greater possibilities than we have yet 
 known for public safety and rapid transit. If you 
 force the interurban roads to develop under a street- 
 railway law, you reduce these possibilities to the level 
 of the street railways. Under a railroad law the pos- 
 sibilities rise above the steam railroads. Let us hope, 
 therefore, that when your thoughts turn to street- 
 railway laws, the subject of street-railway accidents 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 37 
 
 will absorb your whole attention. There is a field 
 worthy of your greatest effort. 
 
 In the important matter of the interurban roads 
 far-reaching in its significance to the prosperity of 
 the State let us hope also that you will not seek 
 merely the path of least resistance. It is not a ques- 
 tion of what is most practical in harmonizing the in- 
 terests and demands of the railroads, street railways, 
 syndicates, etc., who may be before you, but rather, 
 in what way is public safety most practical? Let 
 your standard of practical legislation be, to secure 
 the obvious public benefits which hang before you. 
 If the Legislature does not do this, if it does not 
 by proper laws make possible the highest degree of 
 public safety, will it not, in fact, be guilty of more 
 than contributory negligence? Let us see. We know 
 that the engineer in the cab habitually runs blind. 
 He is forced to do this by the conditions under which 
 he must work. He must bring his trains in on time. 
 A thousand times he passes the curves in safety. On 
 the next trip he misinterprets an order; smoke from 
 a passing train obscures a signal; perhaps for the 
 moment he forgets its location ; he is late and striving 
 to make up time. He has made an ordinary human 
 mistake. As he rounds a curve, suddenly the other 
 train appears. If he could have seen around that 
 curve, if there had been no curve, he would 
 have had time to stop. If there had been a block- 
 signal system, stopping his train automatically, he 
 would have been held up a mile or so back. Now, it 
 is too late. Invariably he sticks to his post and does 
 his best to save the train. If he lives, they arrest him. 
 Now I say if the Legislature does not do its best, 
 if it neglects to provide proper laws to make public 
 safety possible, if the railroad directors, in laying 
 out and equipping their roads, do not do their best, 
 if they neglect obvious measures for safety, 
 
38 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 then, at least, let not the engineer, who has done his 
 best, be used as a shield. 
 
 The whole interest of the community demands your 
 action favorable to the interurban road, to secure 
 Public Safety, Rapid Transit, and Progress. No 
 assumed rights of the railroads should be allowed to 
 stand in the way. Your action is clear. The in- 
 terurban law should be a railroad law. Therefore, 
 provide a railroad law that will be best suited for 
 railroads in general; and transform the obstructing 
 State policy of supervised monopoly into a fairer 
 and more stimulating policy, Competition with 
 State Supervision. 
 
 ADDENDA 
 
 REPORTS OF THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY OF THE COM- 
 MITTEE ON STREET RAILWAYS OF THE 1905 LEGISLATURE 
 
 SENATE, May 3, 1905. 
 
 THE committee on Street Railways, to whom were referred 
 the petitions (here follows recital of petitions), submit the 
 accompanying report : 
 
 Of the above petitions, two are for general legislation 
 authorizing street-railway companies to acquire private land 
 or rights of way by contract or by eminent domain and oper- 
 ate railways thereon. The others are for special legislation, 
 and originally involved schemes for four different electric 
 roads to Providence. One, described at the hearings as the 
 " SHAW " road, was intended to start in Brookline and pass 
 through certain towns to the Rhode Island line, and end in 
 the city of Providence. Two others, called at the hearings 
 the " BLOOD " road and the " KIDDER-PEABODY " road, 
 were planned to start from some point in Boston and end in 
 Providence. These three roads were indicated on plans as 
 located westerly of the Boston and Providence Railroad ; and 
 .since the petitions were filed all three have united their interests, 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 39 
 
 and now desire rights to be given to the KIDDER-PEABODY 
 road only. The fourth proposed railway to Providence was 
 the existing Blue Hill Avenue street railway, which is already 
 in operation and extends from Boston about one-half the dis- 
 tance to the Rhode Island line, and desires to continue its road 
 from its present terminus in East Sharon to Providence. This 
 railway was called at the hearings the " STONE AND WEB- 
 STER " road, who claimed to have expended six hundred and 
 fifty thousand dollars on the line already, and is located 
 easterly of the Boston and Providence Railroad. 
 
 The only element in the above petitions that is really vital 
 (for other positions taken at the hearings appear to have 
 been abandoned) is the grant of the right to operate electric 
 cars on private land, and to acquire land therefor by eminent 
 domain if necessary. With those rights given the present 
 general street-railway laws are ample, and such rights can 
 easily be secured by the change of a few words in the existing 
 general law ; but some of the petitioners for special rights at 
 the hearings, and since, avowedly oppose such a general law, 
 desiring to obtain such rights exclusively, and all object to 
 having such exclusive right given to a competitor. It should 
 be added that both the remaining applicants for special legis- 
 lation appear to be in earnest in the desire to construct a road 
 to Providence, and to have ample means for that purpose. 
 
 Without going into the question of the equities between 
 these two competitors, inasmuch as there is nothing peculiar 
 in this Boston and Providence situation which does not apply 
 equally elsewhere in the Commonwealth, it seems to the com- 
 mittee that the public interest will be better served by a gen- 
 eral act than by a special act. Section 7 of the joint rules 
 provides as follows : Whenever, upon any application for 
 an act of incorporation or other legislation, the purpose for 
 which such legislation is sought can be secured without detri- 
 ment to the public interests by a general law or under existing 
 laws, the committee to which the matter is referred shall report 
 such general law, or " leave to withdraw," or " ought not to 
 pass." 
 
 Rule 30 of the House and Rule 16 of the Senate are to the 
 same effect, and make it the duty of committees to report gen- 
 eral acts rather than special acts if essentially the same result 
 
40 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 can be attained thereby. These rules recognize the evils of 
 special legislation ; and there is no form of special legislation 
 more objectionable than the granting to individuals of char- 
 ters or special rights which have a money value, from the bene- 
 fit of which the rest of the community are excluded. Only five 
 of the United States permit the granting of charters by special 
 laws ; and in this Commonwealth the tendency to accomplish 
 desired results by general enactments, rendering all our citi- 
 zens equal before the law, is a growing tendency, and has 
 been emphasized by many executive vetoes, one during the 
 present session. The general laws for the formation of rail- 
 road companies have for many years made special acts in that 
 field unnecessary; and the general laws relating to street- 
 railway companies would be equally complete if their cars 
 were operated on the public streets only. The time has now 
 come through the progress of invention that electric cars can 
 be operated to the advantage of the public at certain points 
 on private land, thus abridging distance, saving time, and 
 avoiding accidents; and in the opinion of the committee the 
 right so to do should be granted by general law under proper 
 safeguards. There even may be cases where electric roads 
 can be constructed with advantage which do not run longi- 
 tudinally in the public streets at all, where the expense of the 
 ordinary steam railroad would not be justified. A number 
 of such roads exist in the western States, and all are locally 
 regarded as railroads, and are constructed and operated under 
 general railroad laws. Such roads, however, in this State, 
 would not necessarily perform all the duties of our steam 
 roads, and in that case ought not to be required to conform 
 to all our general statutes relating to railroads, as, for illus- 
 tration, the compulsory carrying of milk and bicycles; and 
 it is for this reason that we recommend that adequate provi- 
 sion be made for them under our general street-railway laws 
 instead. With such provision for the acquisition and use of 
 private lands or rights of way, any such railway can be con- 
 structed and operated without its promoter coming to the 
 Legislature at all ; and all our citizens would then be on an 
 equality so far as the law is concerned, and all questions would 
 be passed upon by the local authorities and the board of rail- 
 road commissioners, and that is where such questions belong. 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 41 
 
 The avoidance of special legislation upon matters of this 
 kind would greatly lessen the length of our sessions and the 
 labors of an overburdened Legislature. The committee can- 
 not forbear to add that it would greatly lessen the evils of 
 lobbying. By this we do not mean to criticize individuals. 
 The fault is inherent in the system. So long as exclusive priv- 
 ileges can be obtained from the Legislature and human nature 
 remains unchanged, both the parties seeking such privileges, 
 and competitors who believe they will be injured if such privi- 
 leges are granted, will seek to influence legislation; and their 
 zeal will sometimes be excessive, and not contribute to the 
 common weal or the calm and impartial judgment of the 
 legislator. When railroads and street railways were new, and 
 we had neither general laws on the subject nor a board of rail- 
 road commissioners, this kind of special legislation was neces- 
 sary ; but in the opinion of the committee that time has passed 
 by so far as relates to those two forms of enterprise. 
 
 The change in the street-railway laws which will give the 
 necessary powers of eminent domain can be effected by adding 
 five words near the beginning of the first section of chapter 
 476, Acts of 1903, and omitting seven words near the end of 
 the same sentence, as shown in the accompanying bill. The 
 remainder of said first section, and sections 2 and 3 will remain 
 unchanged, and fully protect the rights of all parties inter- 
 ested, as well as the general public. With the suggested 
 change in the first section, the fourth section of said act be- 
 comes inappropriate, and should be repealed. 
 
 Believing that the time has come when the propriety of 
 operating electric cars on a private right of way, and making 
 use of eminent domain for that purpose where necessary under 
 proper safeguards, should be frankly recognized and provided 
 for, the committee earnestly recommend the passage of the 
 accompanying bill. 
 
 Senate Document No. 341. 
 
 Signed by eight members of 
 the committee. 
 
42 PUBLIC SAFETY vs. 
 
 VIEWS OF A MINORITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON STREET RAIL- 
 WAYS ON THE SEVERAL REQUESTS FOR LEGISLATION TO 
 PROMOTE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELECTRIC RAILWAY 
 BETWEEN BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE 
 
 THE several petitions upon which the majority and minor- 
 ity reports of the committee on Street Railways are based 
 involve requests for legislation to promote the construction 
 of an electric railway between Boston and Providence. Tes- 
 timony of selectmen and other citizens of the towns through 
 which such road would pass was heard, and it was ample and 
 convincing that there is a public demand for its construction. 
 In fact, this evidence stands uncontradicted. It is also well 
 established that the existing general law is not adequate for 
 such purpose. The demand is for an electric road, operated 
 at a high rate of speed, and necessarily located for the most 
 part outside the limits of public ways, and furnishing reason- 
 ably rapid transportation at about one-half steam-railroad 
 rates. The existing general law does not provide for the 
 building of such a road. There was no evidence before your 
 committee of any demand for a similar road elsewhere in the 
 Commonwealth. 
 
 At the outset four sets of petitioners sought for special acts 
 of incorporation, but these finally resolved themselves into two 
 propositions. First, the STONE AND WEBSTER propo- 
 sition involving a terminus at the Dudley Street station of 
 the Boston Elevated, the use of the Blue Hill Street Railway 
 as a link in the system, and a route lying east of the New 
 York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, through East Provi- 
 dence to Providence. The minority of the committee are con- 
 vinced that this route could never meet the demand that exists 
 for a fast line, and would utterly fail to accommodate the 
 most populous towns lying between Boston and Providence. 
 
 The second proposition, known as the GASTON, POWERS, 
 
 AND SHAW route, has for its terminus the Forest Hills 
 
 station of the Boston Elevated, and is located westerly of 
 
 . the steam road and passes through North Attleborough and 
 
 Attleborough and Pawtucket to Providence. 
 
 Such a route, located mainly upon private land, with grade 
 
RAILROAD MONOPOLY 43 
 
 crossings eliminated, could be operated at a high speed with 
 safety, and would fully meet the recognized demands of the 
 communities lying between Boston and Providence. It would 
 also best serve the purpose of a through electric railway 
 between these two cities. 
 
 The minority of the committee are, therefore, of the opinion 
 that special legislation is warranted to meet this special need, 
 and therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying 
 bill. [See Senate, No. 351.] The majority of the committee, 
 not denying these conclusions, recommend general legislation 
 to meet this special case. The objections to a general law for 
 this purpose are several: first, there was no request for a 
 general law except from the representatives of the railroads, 
 who view the building of such a road as the creation of com- 
 petition to be suppressed in its inception; second, the Legis- 
 lature has steadfastly refused the general right of eminent 
 domain to street railways in the past, and there is no evidence 
 of any change in its policy; third, it is doubtful policy to 
 frame a general law to meet a special need. The minority 
 of the committee, therefore, urge the substitution of the spe- 
 cial act for the following reasons : 
 
 First. It is in line with the policy heretofore established 
 of granting eminent domain to street railways only in special 
 cases. 
 
 Second. It is the only practicable method of meeting a 
 great public demand, without considering the extreme proba- 
 bility of the failure of the proposed general act to become a 
 law. Recent street-railway history exemplifies the hazards of 
 attempting to construct an interurban electric road under 
 general laws, 1 especially with railroad opposition. 
 
 Third. It is the duty of the Legislature to recognize the 
 expressed wish of these communities, and give them a legis- 
 lative act which will adequately meet the demand. 
 
 Fourth. The proposed special act is in harmony with 
 existing law; it delegates to the local boards the power of 
 fixing the route over private land as well as over public ways ; 
 it requires the concurrent approval of the Board of Railroad 
 Commissioners, who must at the outset certify that public 
 convenience and necessity require the construction of the road- 
 1 Street-Railway Laws. 
 
44 RAILROAD MONOPOLY 
 
 The rights of the public are thoroughly safeguarded. The 
 right of eminent domain cannot be exercised except by author- 
 ity of the selectmen and with the approval of the Railroad 
 Commissioners. Grade crossings must be eliminated, and the 
 road must bear the whole expense. 
 
 Believing, as we do, that the proposed road is substan- 
 tially a new development in electric roads, not anticipated by 
 existing law, that its construction will satisfy an admitted 
 public demand, we recommend appropriate legislation which 
 in good faith contemplates the actual construction and opera- 
 tion of such a road. 
 
 Senate Document No. 350. 
 
 Signed by seven members of 
 the committee. 
 
 
BEEKELEY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 
 
 QT^TPT^'G^'P 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing 
 O i IV.Ctf.Crf JL to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in 
 - demand may be renewed if application is made before 
 II expiration of loan period. 
 
 Sooc 
 
 10QQ 
 
 <S7 
 
 OCT 
 
 ET 
 VAY 
 
 ROAD 
 
 YEAR 
 
 Red Line shows RAILROAD Accidents