The Washburn leader. [volume], September 02, 1910, Image 3

About The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986

Image provided by: State Historical Society of North Dakota

                
fffvuvuuiu
By Johnny Evers and Hugh Fulltrton
(Continued from last week)
kind of a ball is about' to be delivered.
This style, while effective, is extreme
ly dangerous for the batter, as to
guess wrong is to court serious in
jury. In one game at Cincinnati a few
years ago, Coakley pitching, McGann
tried to outguess him. He guessed
a curve was coming, and his wrist
was broken by a fast inshoot. Two
innings later Bresnahan guessed,
wrong and was knocked senseless.
But not all of batting is hitting the
ball? There is method in the jockey
ing of the batter. The moment a bat
ter steps to the plate with the bases
clear the game becomes a duel be
tween him and the pitcher, and al
though the crowd may be calling for
him to hit, his Intention may be not
to hit until compelled so to do. His
first effort is to "get the pitcher in
the hole that is, make him pitch
enough balls so the batter can be cer
tain the next one will be over the
plate. For, if the batter knows the
ball is coming straight the chances
of making a base hit are doubled.
Then, too, the batter may be under
orders to follow out a manager's plan
of battle. Frequently a manager,
feeling certain the game will be close,
orders his men to wait. The waiting
may be either to discover whether the
pitcher is likely to become wild, or to
wear him out. Each batter then, in
stead of hitting, tries to make the
.pitcher throw as many balls as pos
sible. If a batter can get three balls,
foul off three, and then strike out, he
may have accomplished far more
toward the final result than he would
have 'done had he made a base hit
off the first ball pitched. The average
number of balls pitched by one pitch
er in a game of nine innings will run
about 125, and every additional ball
pitched wearies the pitcher. Many
"ninth inning rallies" by which spec
tacular games are won, are the results
of the waiting of the batters who
struck out during the early innings.
Chance is a great believer in the
waiting game, and insists upon his
men trying out pitchers during the
early Innings of games, especially new
and unfamiliar pitchers, believing that
what each man discovers, will help
the succeeding batters.
The practice of getting to first base
by allowing the pitched ball to hit
them, is more general with batters
than usually is supposed.
Scores of batters each season make
the ball hit them, and take first in
spite of the rules. The umpires must
judge from the actions ot the men
whether they tried to avoid the ball,
and in most cases any contortion of
the arms is construed as such an ef
fort, especially when there is a large
home crowd on 'the field. In the sea
son of 1908, during the fierce struggles
of New York, Chicago and Pittsburg
for the pennant, New York won three
games from Chicago because players
allowed themselves to be hit and they
came near winning the game in which
they played off the tie by the same
method—the second batter up throw
ing his arms across the plate and
making the ball hit him. McGraw's
verbal orders to players to get hit
were audible in the stands, and in one
game Doyle made three attempts to
get hit before he succeeded and then
was allowed to walk.
Umpire O'Day unmasked one trick
on the Polo grounds that same sfeason
which was laughable. Bresnahan was
batting and, while wiggling a la
Salome, he kept pushing his knees
out toward the ball- O'Day stopped
the game, ordered Bresnahan to ad
just his clothing. Bresnahan argued,
but O'Day made him obey, while the
crowd roared at the umpire. Bresna
,han had Stuffed his shirt front out six
inches, and inflated his trouser legs
three inches order to give the ball
more surface to hit
Such tricks, however, are outside
the real sphere of baseball and are
the final resorts of desperate men in
desperate situations. Only a quick
eye, long practice, courage and ac
curate swinging of second, growth ash
will win steadily.
Base Running.
A player who can run 50 yards in
six seconds ought, with a lead of
eight ^eet off'first: base, run to sec
ond base,4 82 feet away, in 3% sec
onds. A pitched ball will travel fromi
the pitcher's slab 68 feet to the catch-.
er's glove (fast ball with catcher
standing nine feet back of the plate,
timed from the start of the pitcher's
motion), In seven-eighths of a-second.
The catcher, if he handles the pitch
perfectly and gets the ball away fast,
will start the .ball towards second in
1*4 seconds after it hits his hands
and his throw from nine feet back of
the plate, if perfect, ought to reach
the second baseman in one second,
and be caught and the hall be ready
to apply to the runner in one-quarter
of secoriB additional. Perfectly
handled. in that time, /he ball ought
to'beat the rugner to second base by
•from one-eighth to one-qyarter of a
second,' or by from 3% to 6& feet and
result in an easy out.
These are mathematical f?cts._ Now
for actual conditions 'as 'proved by
what -has been done. In one season
(1896) a complete record was kept of
Lange's base running. -He stble ex
actly. 100 bases, stealing second base
68vtimes, third ,31 and home once.
Eliminating hit-and-run plays entire'y,
or steals spoiled by h'is, he.made 141
•Sorts to steal, and was successful la
r-MUV VuVtf.
stole 76 bases out of 105 attempts, or
72.4 per cent While Cobb's total at
tempts are unofficial, they are close
enough to show that the first-class
base-runners succeed in about seven
out of ten efforts to steal second. The
figures really reveal more than that.
They show that, while the runners
steal only about 64 out of every 100
times they try for second base, they
succeed nearly eight of ten (78 plus
out of 100) times they start for third.
The conclusion is clear that the
pitchers do not hold up runners close
ly that the ball is pitched wide a
large percentage of times, and that
the catcher, for various reasons, is
lucky to handle the ball perfectly
three times in ten in actual play.
A player* reaches first base, looks
at the batter for a hit-and-run signal,
looks toward the third-base coacher
to see if a signal to steal has been
flashed from the bench, takes his lead,
watches the batter, and anchors him
self. Two balls and no strikes are
pitched he looks again for the sig
nals. Failing to get them, he knows
the batter is going to take a strike,
and anchors himself again—afraid to
risk the displeasure of the manager
by stealing. Even should the pitcher
carelessly permit him to get a big
running start, he trots back to first
base, perhaps slides back as hard as
he would have had to slide to second.
He catches a hit-and-run signal on
the next ball, takes his lead, gets his
start. The pitcher and catcher know
as well as he does that the stage ot
the game calls for an attempt to run
and hit the pitcher pitches fast and
out the catcher takes the ball per
fectly, throws, and even if the runner
is a speedy man he is out by at least
three feet. The pitcher and catcher
did the thinking, the base runner
used steretoyped "team ball" and was
caught.
Another cause for the decline in
base running is the vast improvement
of pitchers in watching bases. The
average pitcher of today holds the
runners to the bases much more care
fully than did those of 15 years ago.
The hit-and-run and the bunt-and
run games, of course, reduce the num
ber of opportunities to steal.
Cobb is one of the rare players who
can play "inside ball" and individual
ball at the same time. He is brilliant,
thinks for himself and is not' much
hampered by bench orders. He runs
mainly on his own judgment (or lack
of judgment) but still he RUNS and
he wins pennants for Detroit by run
ning. The pitchers try harder to hold
him to the bases than they do any
other player in the league the catch
ers give more pitch-out signs to catch
him, but they do not stop him. He is
a living proof of the fact that modern
ball players could run bases with as
much effect as the old-timers could—
if it were not for their lack of indi
vidual thinking.
A few years ago, Frank Chance, al
ways a base-runner of rare judgment,
coupled with great daring, started his
team working the delayed steal. His
runners started, stopped, and when
the catcher relaxed from his throwing
attitude and the man covering second
base started back to his position, the
base-runner made a dash for second.
Mathematically figured out, the run
ner will beat the ball to second by
over two feet, on the basis of 3 1-3
seconds to run the distance.
One day in 1909 Chicago and Pitts
burg were playing, and a run meant
victory for either side. Evers was
on second base, with one out He
Frank Isbell Never Stopped Until Ha
Broke a Leg.
made a bluff run towards third, put
ting down his head and sprinting at
top speed. Gibson whirled to throw
to third. Evers stopped dead still—
and laughed. Gibson instantly made
a perfect throw to second, and, like a
flash, Evers .dashed for third and slid
safely. He scored on a fly ball and
won the game. The play, magnificent
ly executed as it was, set the crowd
wild, and Evers deserved the tribute.
The play had not been made in Chi
cago in five years, yet it was common
in the old days, and the catcher had
to watch every runner and calculate
his distance between the bases before
making a throw, else he would be
trapped.
One of the cleverest bits of base
running Ty Cobb ever did was in one
of the games of the first world's series
between Chicago and Detroit. Cobb
was on first base, when Crawford
drove a single to short right center,
making Slagle cut, in towards Shutte
to reach the ball. When Cobb reached
second base, Hofman had thrown and
the ball was coming in to Evers, who
hod gone into the grass to meet It
Without hesitation, Cobb turned »ec
ond and raced for third. He had fig
ured the play in an instant. He knew
uc wuuiu uave iu cuicn ine oan ana
swing entirely around before he knew
what was going on. He calculated
that Evers would expect him to Stop
at second, and, therefore, look at sec
ond base first, and so lose enough time
to allow him (Cobb) to reach third.
Evers looked at second, looked at
third, saw Cobb already within ten
feet of the base, and he made a wild,
hurried throw that went Into the
crowd and almost gave Detroit the
game. No manager could have told
Cobb to do that, and because ninety
nine out of every one hundred base
runners would have stopped at second
to await orders, they would not have
made the play.
Baseball has been reduced to a
science, and is in danger of becoming
mechanical unless a few base-runners
like Cobb, Collins, Evers and Clarke,
exponents of the unexpected, con
vince managers that base-running
pays, and. that remaining anchored to
bases is a poor policy.
It is history that Frank Isbell, when
he was on bases, never stopped until
he broke a leg, went out or some one
shut the gate on him. He could take
wilder chances than any runner who
ever landed on a base, and he kept
running after his legs wore out and
his speed left him—and running with
excellent success because the op
ponents would be so surprised to see
him going that they would throw wild.
Base running consists chiefly of do
ing the unexpected, and the team that
refuses to run bases because a strong
throwing catcher is pitted against it
is beaten. The strong throwing
catchers, paradoxical as it may seem,
have the least throwing to do, proving
some teams surrender before they are
beaten, while the worse thrower a
catcher is the more throws he has to
make.
Umpiring.
Umpires, in spite of the theory upon
which baseball is conducted, and the
apparent belief of spectators, are hu
man beings, endowed with sensibil
ities. They can feel such emotions as
anger, resentment, and revenge their
systems are capable of suffering pain,
surprise, regret, even acute mental
torture. Umpires (the officials to the
contrary) are likely to blunder, to be
carried away by prejudice, by desire
for revenge, and more than likely to
become confused by the fierce heckling
of players or spectators, and to
blunder worse and worse. Umpires
may even be dishonest. They are
only human.
Yet baseball, as an institution, is
more dependent upon the honesty,
courage and fairness of umpires than
upon any other element in the game.
One incompetent or dishonest official,
or one of violent passions who per
mits personal animosity, or his sense
of wrong, to influence him, can mar
an entire season, ruin the chances of
one or more teams, and perhaps give
the championship to a club not de
serving the honor.
In spite of these facts, the rulers of
baseball have adopted an extraor
dinary code first ,that the umpire al
ways is right second, that those who
differ with him are "anarchists
third, that all criticism of umpires
should cease "for the good of the
game." The rulers of baseball are
striving and have striven for years to
align all forces with the umpire, to
extend his already dangerous power,
and to deprive players and others of
the right of criticism.
The large majority of umpires are
honest and mean to be fair, but, as
Umpire Johnstone remarked: "Some
umpires have one bad fault, and that
is not being able to forget today to
morrow." The umpire who remembers
Is a bad umpire, and it is almost as
bad for the player to remember. Tim
Hurst had a bad day at Washington
and Joe Cantillon thought he robbed
his team of the game. The following
day Hurst, willing to forget, walked
over to the Washington bench and
asked cordially: "Who is your pitch
er today, Joe?"
"Guess, damn you," responded the
retentive-memorled Cantillon. "That's
all you did yesterday," and the trouble
was renewed.
Heads of leagues make their serious
mistakes in upholding umpires who
are palpably wrong. They are com
pelled to uphold them on all questions
of judgment, but to declare the um
pire was right in some cases is laugh
able. There was a case in 1894 in
Chicago with Moran umpiring. Cor
coran, at short for Cincinnati, picked
up a grounder batted by Tinker and
threw the ball five feet over Peitz's
head, Peitz playing" first base. The
ball went on to the bleachers, 60 feet
away. Peitz jumped pretended he had
caught the ball and Moran called
Tinker out. Other players were com
pelled to hold Tinker to keep him
from assaulting the umpire who or
dered him off the field, and ordered
all players who talked to him out of
the game. Peitz chased the ball
around the bleachers, ran back to the
bench and touched Tinker.
"Now, Tinker," said Moran, "you
are out, anyway." And the decision
stood.
In Brooklyn, in 1908, with the score
0 to 0, Brooklyn had runners on sec
ond and third bases an.d two out
when the batter missed the third
strike. The catcher dropped the ball,
but recovered and threw the rumier
out at first. Two runners crossed the
plate, and the umpire permitted both
runs to count. But the. Chicago club,
In an exhibition game at Birmingham,
met the worst on record. A runner
trying to score with two out In the
ninth, was thrown out so far from the
platevthat he did not slide, but turned
and ran through the diamond to the
bench. The umpire called him out,
(Continued next week)
UnilflLU I UN ULIILIII
LESSON FROM EUROPE SHOW*
HOW WATERWAY IMPROVE
MENT HELPS RAILROADS.
HAS A CREATIVE EFFECT
Construction of the Manchester Ship
Canal Shown to Have Resuscitated
Many Dying Towns—Many Give
Similar Experiences.
In previous articles it was shown
that the waterways carry goods more
cheaply than railways do or can and
compel the railways to carry for less
than they otherwise would, and then
the claim was made that the improve
ment of waterways is a benefit to the
railways with which they compete.
Several instances were given to sup
port this claim and many more might
be given if space allowed, for the
writer, who has studied the subject for
25 years, has found many instances
of benefit, and not a single instance
of harm, to railways from the im
provement of waterways. It is now in
order to see if we can find a reason
for this rather surprising result.
Waterways, as has been said before,
produce benefits in three principal
ways—by direct saving in the cost of
transportation of goods carried by
water, indirect saving, by the lower
ing of railway rates through the com
petition of water routes, and by what
may be called a creative effect. It
is this last named effect which we
are now to consider.
Manchester, England, before the con
struction of the ship canal, was a
dying town. Hundreds of stores and
thousands of dwellings were empty,
factories were closed—some moved
away—and population was decreasing.
With the opening of the canal all this
was changed. Factoriess reojiened,
new ones were built, the empty houses
were refilled and thousands of new
ones built to accommodate the popula
tion that came pouring in. And the
benefits were not confined to Manches
ter alone, but were distributed ovei
the whole great industrial region, con
taining over 8,000,000 people, of which
Manchester is the center. It was no)
only natural, but inevitable, that the
great increase in population and pros
perity in Manchester and the surround
ing region should be reflected in the
business and the profits of the rail
ways therein.
Liverpool Also Aided.
Liverpool fought desperately to pre
vent the building of the canal and the
establishment of the new port of Man
chester but instead of being injured
by the canal, the business of Liverpool
has increased faster than before. Dur
ing the 13 years before the canal was
opened the increase in the harbor re
ceipts at Liverpool was only $310,000
in the same length of time after it
was opened the increase was $1,365,
000. The 6,000,000 tons of traffic at
Manchester have not been stolen from
Liverpool, they have been created by
the canal.
Frankfort, Germany, before the
River Main was improved, was not a
dying city but was decidedly stagnant.
Mannheim and Mayence on the Rhine,
which had been improved, were grow
ing rapidly, while Frankfort was grow
ing very little. As soon as the canal
ization of the river was finished, which
was in 1886, the city began to grow
and has kept on growing ever since.
The population, which was 154,000 in
1885, has increased to 229,000 in 1895,
to 335,000 in 1905, and is probably
more than 400,000 now. Evidently the
people of Frankfort expect their city
to keep on growing, too. They spent
over |1,500,000 on a harbor when the
river was first improved and are
hard at work right now building a
new and much larger harbor at a cost
of |17,600,000. Just as In the case of
Manchester, the benefit was not con
fined to the city of Frankfort the in
dustrial and commercial life of the
whole region was greatly stimulated.
Mines long closed were reopened, new
Industries were started, and today
there is an almost continuous succes
sion of factories lining the banks of
the river from Frankfort to the
Rhine.
Everybody Reaps Benefit
Hunt the world around and always
and everywhere we find that the im-.
provement of waterways sets cities to
growing, factory wheels to humming,
and commerce to moving in a wider
and swifter stream. Railroads get
more business in big cities than in
small towns, in a densely populated
manufacturing region than in one that
is thinly settled. Waterways, there
fore, benefit railways—and states and
nations as well—by promoting an in
crease in population, in manufactures
and in commerce. But for one who
likes to get clear down to the bot
tom of things there still remains the
question: "Why do waterways in
crease population and create com
merce and industry?"
Consul General Mason, now in Pari*,,
but for some years at Frankfort, says:
"German statesmanship wasamoqg
the first to foresee that the time
would come when, railways having
reached their maximum extension and
efficiency, there would remain a vast
surplus of coarse, raw materials—coal,
ores, timber, stone, and crude metals
—which could be economically carried
long distances only by water trans
portation, and that in a fully de
veloped national system the proper
role of railroads would be to carry
passengers and the higher classes of
merchandise manufactured from the
raw staples that the waterways had
brought to their doora."
7,-1
MILIUM I Dl lumen
COST8 ONLY ONE-SIXTH TO ONE
TENTH AS MUCH AS BY
RAIL.
TRANSPORTATION'S BIG TOLL
American People Annually Pay Out
Three Times as Much for Trans
portation as They Pay for Support
of the Government.
Do you know
That the people of the United States
pay out each year about three times
as much in transportation taxes, that
is, for the carriage of freight and pas
sengers, as they pay in taxes for the
support of government, national, state
and local?
That transportation affects the price
of everything that everybody buys,
sells, eats, wears or uses in any way
whatever—air, water and sunshine ex
cepted?
That cheap transportation benefits
both 'the producer and the consumer,
making wheat and cotton higher and
flour and cloth lower at one and the
same time?
That the cheapest known transport
tation is water transportation, costing,
on the average, from one-sixth to one
tenth as much as transportation by
rail?
That the direct saving on the goods
actually carried by water in the
United States is over $550,000,000 a
year?
That railways always make lower
rates when subject to the competition
of waterways than where such compe
tition does not exist?
That the indirect saving, thus
caused, is probably as large as the di
rect saving given above?
That both the direct and indirect
saving would be largely increased by
the further improvement of our water
ways?
That waterways always increase the
profits of the railways with which they
come into competition? For the rea
son that waterways, by giving cheap
transportation for raw materials, actu
ally create both industry and com
merce? As is indicated by the fact
That in 1900 there was only one city
in the United States, with a population
of 150,000 or over, which was not lo
cated on a navigable waterway? And
further
How Frankfort Benefited.
That Frankfort, Germany, grew
more in the twenty years after the
River Main was canalized than it had
grown in the two hundred year,s be
fore? And again
That Germany, which Is nearly 60,
000 square miles smaller than Texas,
but has one of the finest waterway
systems in the world, had in 1908 a
foreign commerce greater than that of
the United States by over $500,000,
000?
That throughout the civilized world
the largest cities, the densest popula
tion, the busiest and most prosperous
people are to be found along navlga
ble waterways?
That the surest nnd speediest way
to develop the resources of the nation
and every state and section thereof,
to increase the growth of every city
and community in the country, to pro
mote the prosperity of every interest,
including the railroads, and of every
citizen, east, west, north and south, is
to improve all our waterways as fast
and as far as we can?
That money used for the improve
ment of waterways, wisely planned
and honestly constructed, is not ail
expenditure but an investment, which
will pay a dividend of at least 100 per
cent a year?
Provision for Funds.
That the benefits which would re
sult from the comprehensive improve
ment of our waterways, and the losses
which would follow our failure to
make such improvement, are so enor
mous, that funds should be provided
by the issuance of bonds—as has been
done by railways—so that the work
may be begun at once and finished as
soon as possible?
That the national government claims
exclusive jurisdiction nd exercises
supreme control over all navigable wa
terways? And therefore
That it depends entirely on the con
gress of the United States whether
the work of creating a great national
system of waterways shall be done at
all ,and how soon it shall be finished?
That the vote of the member of con
gress from your district will help to
decide the policy of the government
with regard to waterways?
That the action of congressmen is
Influenced by the wishes of their con
stituents, when they know what those
wishes are?
That you have the right to ask the
candidates for congress in your dis
trict to state their position on this
question now, before the election?
That you are blind to your own in
terests if you do not ask your candi
dates to pledge themselves to work
and vote for waterways if elected, and
then demand of the one who
Ib
elect­
ed that he shall keep his pledge?
The facts and figures given in this
series of articles have been submitted
In the hope that those who read them
would see the Importance of the policy
of waterway improvement advocated
by the National Rivers and Harbors
congress, and would aid in securing
the adoption of that policy. How well
they have served the purpose for
which they were written must be left
(or their readers to decide.
Every-obstruction to the free and
ipen navigation of our waterways 1*
brake on the wheels of Industry.
mtAN Luwtn ifAitar
EFFECT OF WATERWAY COMPETI
TION ON THE RAILWAYS OF
THE COUNTRY.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT SAVING
Conservative Estimate Is That in at
Single Year It Would Be MoreThai»
Enough to Discharge the Entire Na
tional Debt.
It was stated in a previous article1
that waterways produce both direct
and indirect savings in the cost of.
transportation and also exert what
may be called a creative effect. Aa
an instance of the direct saving It
was shown that the 100,000,000 tons of
freight handled on the great lakes
in 1907 were carried for $550,000,000
less than It would have cost by rail.
If the opinion of the United States
army engineers Is correct—and this
opinion is based upon results actually
achieved on the rivers of Europe—
we have a number of rivers on which,
when properly improved, freight can
be carried for less than on the lakes
and many rivers on which it can be
carried for much less than by rail.
If, therefore, the plan advocated by
the National Rivers and Harbors
congress should be carried out—which
includes the improvement of all our
rivers to such extent as Bhall be found
advisable after expert examination—
the direct saving in cost of transporta
tion would be vastly increased. It
would probably be increased tenfold,
but. if it were only doubled the direct
saving in a single y«'ar would be more
than enough to pay off the nationaT
debt.
i!ut this is not the end of the bene
fits which the general improvement of
our waterways would bring, it is only
the beginning. Beside the direct sav
ing there is an indirect saving which
results from the effect of waterways,
on railway freight rates, for rates
are always lower on railroads which
meet water competition than on those
which do not. The amount of this sav
ing is not everywhere the same, owing
to difference in conditions, but we
can get a good general idea of it from
a study of some sample instances.
Freight Rates Affectsd.
Freight rates from New York te
Salt Lake or Spokane are much high
er than to Sitn Francisco or Seattle,
although the distance is much less, be
cause goods can be carried to the Pa
ciflc coast by water, around Cape
Horn, while there is no waterway ol
any kind to the inland cities named.
It is not the ocean alone that affects
railroad rates. Compare the rates on
first class merchandise to river towna
and inland towns situated about 259
miles from St. Louis. Towns on the
upper Mississippi get a rate of 33
cents a hundred, inland towns pay 63
cents towns on the Ohio pay 41 cents,
inland towns in the same region
pay 87.
A still more striking instance, and
one showing the direct result of wa
terway improvement, is to be found
on the Columbia river. Before the
locks at the cascades were built
freight rates on nails, and that class
of goods, from Portland to The Dallea
were $6.40 per ton. As soon as the
locks were finished and the steam
boats could get through, the railroad
rate dropped to two dollars per ton—•
less than one-third what it was before.
That the difference was due to the
river improvement is shown by tha
fact that rates were not reduced be-,
yond the point to which the steams
boats could run. For instance, the
rate on salt in car load lots was $1.50
per ton to The Dalles, and $10.20 pee
ton to Umatilla—$1.50 per ton for the
88 miles with water competition and
$8.70 per ton for the next 100 miles
without. These rates have since been
reduced as the improvement has pro
ceeded, and when the work is finished
and boats can run far up the Columi
bia river and to Lewiston and othee
point in Idaho on its principal tribu
tary, the Snake river, the people la
ail that region will benefit not onl]|
by the direct saving on goods carried
by water, but also by the indirect sav»'
ing through the reduced rate on gooda
carried by rail. Exactly similar ra
suits would follow the radical lm?
provement of rivers all over the United
States.
Indirect Saving Large.
There is, however, no possible was
of finding out just how much this In
direct saving would be. Rates on some
freight would be reduced greatly, on
some freight slightly, on some, per*
haps, not at all. But we can get soma
idea of the amount of freight which
might be influenced. In the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1907, the total
amount of freight handled by thd
railroads of the United States was
1,796,336,659 tons. Some of this waa
hauled a short distance, some a long
distance, and some was handled by|
more than one road, but it was equal
to 236,601,390,103 tons hauled ona
mile. If the comprehensive improve^
ment of our waterways should make
an average reduction of one mill peij
ton-mile—the difference in the rate*
on salt given above is 70 times a*
much, or seven cents per ton mile—id
would make a saving of over $236,600,^
000 on the value of business handled
in the fiscal year.
At first glance, it looks as if thai
would mean disaster to the railway*!
but that is the exact opposite of tha
truth. Strange as It may seem, thej
surest and speediest way to enlarge
the business and Increase the profitii
of the railways of the United States
Is to Improve the waterways of tha
United Stataa.