New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-02-28
CENTRAL RAILROAD FABE.

The statement Of Justice" printed III our
last, is probably as forcible an argument "a can
be made for the proposed removal OF the restrie-
ton of the passenger fares on the New-fork
Central Railroad to two cents per mile. 1t is
perfectly temperate and courteous in its terms.
and our reply to it shall be equally 10. We
will follow generally its arrangement of the
order of objections to the proposed change, and
ask our readers 10 judge whether We do or. do
not fairly meet and answer its suggestions:
l. Monopoly. We care little for ugly words
and will at once admit that the Central ~ not
monopoly in the sense that the Camden and
| Amboy is-that is, it has no exclusive privilege
! guaranteed by law Of carrying passengers across
the State between the cities at either end OF III
| line. But we still maintain that the talk OF
Justice" as to "the widest competition" &c,
lis at variance with the facts. He says (cs do
mot that railroad could not now be built for ios1
than sec, 600, 600 (more than twice the actual
cost Of the Centrally We add, il il were built, it
would have no chance Of successful competition,
because the established connections Of tho Gen.
trail With the rosss aLith feed il with passen.
gers from every quarter would secure the ex-
listing road two-thirds of the way and nearly all
the through travel. A new road "from Roches-
ter to Schenectady" or from Oswego TO
Troy" lacking these connections, would mover
pay running expenses. Practically, then, the
Central has monopoly of vast and steadily
increasing business--the best that our State AZ
fords. And all we ask is that II shall do that
business faithfully, reasonably, and in accord
ance with its legal obligations.
III. Hafered Stoek.-The State Of New.York
chartered, at different times, nine several COM
panieg to make railroads through specified por.
tons of the central and Northwestern portions
Of our State. Most Of these had been con-
structcd, though two had not been, when they
together applied to the Legislature of 1853 to
weld them into one mammoth corporation in.
tended to own and operate all these roads under
the title of the Central Railroad. Justice"
correctly admits that special legislation was
requisite" to this end; though he seems else
where to argue that it was nOt-that they might
have consolidated themselves under the provi-
sions of existing general law. At all events,
the railroads sought the legislation obtained it,
and profited by it. We assert, and believe
Justice" will not deny, that their property
was worth Ten Millions of Dollars more, the
day or month after the consolidation was effected
than il was month before that Legislature Of
50 met; and We appeal to the sales at the
Stock Exchange to verify our assertion.
III. Consolidation Public Wrong.-We do
not care to take issue with Justice on this point
since we are only insisting that the stipulated
conditions OF consolidation shall be fulfilled
The corporstors came TO the Legislature saying.
4" Please roll up our nine several companies and
roads into one" The Legislature responded,
Eyes, ON condition that you will hcnceforth
carry all passengers at rates not exceeding two
cents per mile;" end the bargain was struck, to
the immediate profit ofthe corporators in sum
not less than Ten Millions Of Dollars. They
do not propose to pay back penny OF this to
the State, while they ask the State to release
them from the condition. This seems to us
most unfair and unreasonable. And whom
Justice tries TO plead the Baby Act y favor
Of the present stockholders as against the en-
gagemeuts Of their predecessors Of 1853, be
seems to affront the popular intelligence. The
two cent restriction was as palpabls in 80 as it
Is to-day and the consolidated stocks rose
largely in the face Of that restriction; and