Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 11.djvu/701

Rh 1552 ff. of the report), the author repeated much of what he had theretofore written in these articles.

If in the following review I enter upon details, more than would be necessary for German readers, regarding Professor Meyer's utterance with respect to state railway rate policy, I do so in the hope that these lines may also come under the observation of American readers. In my estimation it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that views like these, presented with great confidence and apparently resting upon thorough investigations, should take root in the United States. The railway questions which at present are agitating America have only academic interest for us.

Let us see upon what the author bases his derogatory verdict regarding the freight tariffs of the Prussian state railways. Not by the method of presenting to Americans the German tariff system, German basal rates, etc., and then attempting to prove that this system is an erroneous one; that rates are incorrectly established; that trade and industry generally suffer from these rates, and are incapable of adequate development, etc. Rather he contents him self with saying in two pages (pp. 3-5) that our freight rates are composed of two parts, terminal charges and movement expenses. The remainder of his discussion is intended to show, on the basis of a few examples taken from German, partially very prejudiced sources, that under such a system it is impossible to avoid conflicts between different branches of industry and industrial sections, and that the effective competition of railways with waterways is thereby prevented. The fundamental defect of Prussian rates, according to the author, is their lack of elasticity, that they are not constructed on a falling scale, and that they cannot be thus constructed in accordance with the accepted principles. However, on the same page on which the author advances this bold assertion he has the misfortune to cite Special Tariff III, which is constructed on a falling scale. In addition to these regular tariffs, as is well known, piece-goods rates and express-piece-goods rates are tapering rates; and there lies before me a compilation which shows that in May last there were not less than sixty-one commodity rates, including those for the most important bulky goods (wood, all kinds of raw material, fertilizers, ores, etc.), which were constructed on the falling scale; and carload rates on live stock are tapering rates. It is therefore a gross misrepresentation of facts when the author says: