Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 11.djvu/703

 REVIEWS 687

parts of the world, people who are dissatisfied with certain rates and desire reductions.

The second chapter is devoted chiefly to a discussion of the competition of railways and waterways. Professor Meyer con- siders it the duty of the railways to maintin the strongest possible competition with waterways. That this competition is not directed more strenuously against the Rhine, the Elbe, or the Oder meets with his disapproval ; and he cannot understand why the railways should permit the natural waterways to carry an increasing tonnage ; it is their duty, according to his views, to adjust their tariffs in such a manner that all freight is hauled by the railways and the waterways lie waste. Furthermore, the author cannot understand why the Prussian government does not favor the Prussian port of Stettin, by means of railway tariffs, in such a manner that it can compete more effectually than heretofore with Hamburg. On p. 45 he states :

While the Prussian government and the German people generally believe it a patriotic act to cut railway rates against foreign cities, such as Rotterdam, they would not approve any departure from their uniform system of rates for the purpose of strengthening one German city as against another.

Naturally, Meyer considers it equally absurd to construct a canal between Stettin and Berlin. It is entirely incomprehensible to him why the state railways did not prevent the deflection of a large part of the petroleum trade of Bremen to the waterways. It is not enough for him that low commodity rates on petroleum are in force from Bremen to southern and western Germany ; although even these low rates are frequently met by the tank-ships via Rotterdam and the Rhine. This struggle for the petroleum trade should have led to the reduction of rates by rail also to the east, to Berlin, and to Magdeburg! In consequence of this mistaken rate policy the oil trade has been driven from Bremen to Hamburg.

That with such views Professor Meyer is a still more pronounced opponent of artificial waterways and of canal construc- tion is not surprising. In the fourth chapter a short summary is given of the various attempts to carry a canal bill through the Prussian parliament during the last few years. He advances the same objections to the first two canal bills which were urged by opponents of canals with us. The fate of the last canal bill is not mentioned. No mention is made of the fact that in the elaboration