English VI.

Question: Resolved, That the Interstate Commerce Act should be so amended as to allow pooling.

Brief for the Affirmative.

F. W. MOORE and F. L. YOUNG.

Best general references: Quarterly Jour. of Econ. II, 184-185 (Jan. 1888) and IV. 158-171 (Jan. 1890); Pol. Science Quarterly II. 369 (Sept. 1887); Report of Inter state Commerce Commission I. 307-312 (Dec. 1,1887), II, 436 et seq. (Dec. 1,1888), III, 394 et seq. (Nov. 30, 1889), IV. 351-358 (Nov. 29, 1890); Report of Senate Comm. on Interstate commerce in Senate Reports (No. 46) 1st Session 49th Congress (1885-86) III, Part 2, 71-77, 114-117, 119-120, 123-126, 170-173, 194. 202, 203, 1206.

I. The prohibition of pooling was the result of popular misapprehension; Quar. Jour. Econ. II. 164.

II. The prohibition leads to-(a) Ruinous competition by causing-(1) Rate wars: Quar. Jour. Econ. III. 182-3,-(2) The construction of unnecessary parallel lines: Ibid.-(b) Consolidation and absence of competition.

III. Prohibition disturbs business-(a) Instability of rates: Quar. Jour. Econ. IV. 159-160.-(b) Discriminations.

IV. Pooling insures competition, advantageous-(a) To the public.-(b) To the railroads.

V. A pool regulated by law and controlled by a commission is the best-solution of the railway problem.-(a) Most economists and railroad experts support this view.

Brief for the Negative.

R. W. HUNTER and F. C. THWAITS.

Best general references: J. F. Hudson, The Railways and the Republic 194-250; International Commerce Rep't, 1879, p. 167; Interstate Commerce Rep't 1886, pp. 360, 880, 1204 etc.

I. There is no necessity for pooling.-(a) Serious rate wars have ceased since passage of Interstate Commerce Law-(b) The discriminations which pooling is supposed to prevent are prohibition by the I. S. Com. Law.-(c) There are other ways of avoiding excessive competition: Forum XIII 745 (Aug. 1892)-Western Traffic Association.

II. Pooling is an evil.- (a) It deteriorates the service: J. F. Hudson, 229.-(b) It puts arbitrary power over the commerce of the country into the hands of a few men: Hadley's Railroad Trans. p. 76: Hon. T. M. Cooley in Boston Transcript, Jan. 9,1889.-(c) Its object is to raise rates by destroying competition: Hudson p. 215: Mr. Lincoln in Interstate Commerce Rep't 1886, p. 363.-(d) It destroys healthful competition.-(e) It leads to the maintenance of unnecessary roads at the expense of the public: Hudson 230, 418.

III. Pooling under control of a government commission would not be practicable-(a) Because of the great number of Rail-roads: Poor's R. R. Manual for 1892.-(b) No commission would be competent to judge on the merits of the question of pooling.-(c) It would put two much power in hands of the commission.- (d) Such a plan was defeated in the House: Cong. Record 1893, pp. 709-715; Minority Rep't against pooling in Cong. Record 1893 p. 712.