FREIGHT. This term was originally syn onymous with cargo, being applied to miscella neous articles shipped for transportation by water. When the railways began to do, a gen eral transportation business in America the word freight was extended in meaning to cover all miscellaneous merchandise transported by train, other than baggage, mail and express matter paying a higher rate for quick trans poration. In Great Britain, however, the word freight was not so extended in general meaning, the word crgoodsp being employed for miscellaneous shipments by railway, so that in England they say goods-van and goods-train with a meaning similar to freight-car and freight-train in the Western hemisphere.
The tremendous development of the United States railways, and the enormous freights they handle, have overshadowed the much smaller volume of ocean freight shipped in and out of this country, hence freight is largely considered from the railway point of view. The freedom of trade between the States, and the unprecedented development oi railways has evolved a freight traffic in this country which is the marvel of modern civilization. Manu facturers no longer confine their trade to a neighborhood, but seek trade hundreds and thousands of miles away, because low freight charges enable them to compete.
Early in the history of American railways there was developed the policy of charging for freight ((what the traffic would bear.° Obvi ously a carload of shoes, worth several hun dred times as much as a carload of brick, could afford to pay a cent a pound or $20 a ton more without any danger of driving away the traffic, whereas the brick would not be shipped at all if it was assessed a rate of $20 a ton, being more than its intrinsic value. So the railroads stiffened the prices on valuable goods and took other articles at cost or less than cost, arguing that as they had to run trains both ways, they might be hauling empties if they did not accept cheap °fillers? They were fur ther urged on by the continual threat of com petition by canal, river or coast vessels. The railway interests thought it good policy to keep these out of existence, because water transportation is cheaper than railway, although slower. So they underbid for freight on stone, brick, lumber, coal, grain, etc., to hold the trade and keep down canal and river competition, believing that if these got a good start they would make a bid for the higher class freight that could pay a profitable price. Under such
conditions the railways of America have built up a freight traffic that far excels the passen ger and express traffic. There are more than 40 times as many freight cars in use on Amer ican railways as there are passenger, mail and express cars combined.
Freight rates, originally based on market conditions, next had to meet competitive con ditions, to points where other railways led, or where there was water communication. For many years the railways competed for freight, and cut-rate wars between the roads were com mon in the last century. Then it developed that very large shippers who could dictate to railways demanded and secured rebates, thus getting an advantage over small competitors; also that certain cities had been discriminated against, and that the railways actually carried freight to some centres, say 500 miles for less than they charged intervening cities at a dis tance of 300 or 400 miles. Tinder such condi tions freight rates had become so much mixed and complicated as to be unintelligible to the mass of people, seemingly senseless, and often grossly unfair to those who considered the charges from the basis of equity. Complaints were so numerous and so well founded that the Interstate Commerce Commission (q.v.) was established to secure equitable rates and rul ings, and the famous regulation was established that a railway must not charge more for a short haul than for a long haul.
Conditions tended toward centralization of and consolidation of railway interests, and for years promoters and capitalists were kept busy consolidating competing lines of railway until the present great trunk lines were established, and 88 railway systems virtually control the transportation of the country, while 13 of them, each doing an annual freight business of from $50.000.000 to $150,000,000, control more than half the lines and dominate the situation. Com petition has given way to consultation, and through interlocking directorates the great rail way systems move largely in unison, with com mon interests, the protection of the shipping public lying in the dictation of the Interstate Commerce Commission.