1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
qwelly [4]
3 years ago
7

Why did river transport become important?

History
1 answer:
Over [174]3 years ago
4 0
River transport is very important because it had rear accedents cases as compered to road transport systerm, which counts almost 5 death per day. in addition to that, it was very cheap though it is slow
You might be interested in
In what way was the Sherman Antitrust Act successful?
Maksim231197 [3]

Answer:

It allowed the government to break up the trust arrangement that the Standard Oil company had.

Explanation:

Approved July 2, 1890, The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was the first Federal act that outlawed monopolistic business practices.

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts. It was named for Senator John Sherman of Ohio, who was a chairman of the Senate finance committee and the Secretary of the Treasury under President Hayes. Several states had passed similar laws, but they were limited to intrastate businesses. The Sherman Antitrust Act was based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed the Senate by a vote of 51–1 on April 8, 1890, and the House by a unanimous vote of 242–0 on June 20, 1890. President Benjamin Harrison signed the bill into law on July 2, 1890.

A trust was an arrangement by which stockholders in several companies transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. In exchange, the stockholders received a certificate entitling them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies. The trusts came to dominate a number of major industries, destroying competition. For example, on January 2, 1882, the Standard Oil Trust was formed. Attorney Samuel Dodd of Standard Oil first had the idea of a trust. A board of trustees was set up, and all the Standard properties were placed in its hands. Every stockholder received 20 trust certificates for each share of Standard Oil stock. All the profits of the component companies were sent to the nine trustees, who determined the dividends. The nine trustees elected the directors and officers of all the component companies. This allowed the Standard Oil to function as a monopoly since the nine trustees ran all the component companies.

The Sherman Act authorized the Federal Government to institute proceedings against trusts in order to dissolve them. Any combination “in the form of trust or otherwise that was in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations” was declared illegal. Persons forming such combinations were subject to fines of $5,000 and a year in jail. Individuals and companies suffering losses because of trusts were permitted to sue in Federal court for triple damages. The Sherman Act was designed to restore competition but was loosely worded and failed to define such critical terms as “trust,” “combination,” “conspiracy,” and “monopoly.” Five years later, the Supreme Court dismantled the Sherman Act in United States v. E. C. Knight Company (1895). The Court ruled that the American Sugar Refining Company, one of the other defendants in the case, had not violated the law even though the company controlled about 98 percent of all sugar refining in the United States. The Court opinion reasoned that the company’s control of manufacture did not constitute a control of trade.

The Court’s ruling in E. C. Knight seemed to end any government regulation of trusts. In spite of this, during President Theodore Roosevelt’s “trust busting” campaigns at the turn of the century, the Sherman Act was used with considerable success. In 1904 the Court upheld the government’s suit to dissolve the Northern Securities Company in State of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Company. By 1911, President Taft had used the act against the Standard Oil Company and the American Tobacco Company. In the late 1990s, in another effort to ensure a competitive free market system, the Federal Government used the Sherman Act, then over 100 years old, against the giant Microsoft computer software company.

Resource Used:

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=51

I hope this helps you in any shape or form.

4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
PLS HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In four to five sentences compare and contrast citizens' rights in China and India.
FromTheMoon [43]

China is superior to India in many ways.

  • Unemployment rate is higher (4,5% in China and 3,4% in India).
  • China has a striking high proportion of women workers; their labour force participation is more than twice that of their Indian peers.
  • China’s literacy rate has reached a remarkable level, especially given that people must learn characters rather than an alphabet. Over 96% of the population are literate - compared to just over 71% in India.
  • China is notorious for its lack of press freedom. But Reporters Without Borders suggests that India has plenty of problems too.
  • A baby born in China can expect to live for nine years longer than one born in India.
  • India has a split society in terms of race and religion. People are being killed for eating beef, foreigners are attacked for difamation of temples.
3 0
2 years ago
Select all the correct answers.
zloy xaker [14]

Answer:

first and second

Explanation:

Black citizens were denied access to the same public facilities as whites.

Marriages between white and nonwhite citizens were forbidden.

Nonwhite citizens were required to carry identification papers with them at all times.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
List two examples in which George W. Bush used his powers as Commander in Chief
elixir [45]

Answer:

umm  if u copy and paste the question u can find what u need from google

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
British Colonist objected to the Proclamation of 1763 because they-
balu736 [363]
Answer: Wanted to expand westward but were not allowed to.

Happy to help! :)
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Nevermind. I figured it out.
    12·1 answer
  • Has Rosa Parks changed your life ? How so ?
    13·1 answer
  • What was one factor that caused the British to surrender at Yorktown? British soldiers were suffering from disease and refused t
    13·2 answers
  • What did the movement for the Equal Rights Amendment have in common with the movement against the amendment? A. Both were ignore
    13·1 answer
  • Which of the following might help explain why Indian representatives signed the Walla Walla Treaty?
    14·1 answer
  • What was the result of the Cuban Missile Crisis?
    14·2 answers
  • I've been trying to answer this for the past 20 min piz​
    13·2 answers
  • How successful were the British in expanding<br>their control over india? [14 Marks).​
    6·1 answer
  • Carefully study the graph provided, and then answer the questions.
    6·2 answers
  • Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immun
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!