Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1867-11-27
Gbt frftman,
MONTPELIER, VT.:
WEDNESDAY, NOV. u, 1867.


last days session of the Legislature, printed
in another place in this paper, that an at
tempt was made to regulate by law the
charges for transportation of freight and
passengers on the railroads in this State, and
that the bill, although it passed the House
by very large vote, was defeated in the
Senate by vote of two to one. 1t appeared
at the hearing before the committee on rail
roads. that the Vermont Central railroad,
(and similar proof might have been made as
to every railroad in the State) had at times,
carried freight from Boston TO Burlington
for less than one-half the price charged for
the same freight from Boston to Montpelier.
The same road carries freight from Boston to
Chicago, charging more than, and in many
cases not so much as, is charged for similar
freight TO the people of Northfield, Ran
/ dolph, Waterbury. and other stations, not
near competing points, on the line of the
Vermont Central railroad. There is now a
provision of the general law Of the State
that railroad shall charge more for a less
distance than it charges for greater that
is that it shall not charge more for carving
freight from Boston to Montpelier than it
does for carrying il to Burlington, ST Al
bans, or Rouses Point but the only way Of
enforcing this provision is by an action
against the corporation TO recover back the
excessive charge. The operation of this law
however, does not remedy the injustice for
the roads violate the law every day. and
parties suffer the wrong rather than bring
upon themselves the annoyance in their
! business 10 which the roads would subject
! them if they should seek redress in the
courts: and in the case of the Vermont Central
| the present law is imperative, as that road
is not operated by the corporation. and the
statute only provides for suit against the
corporation. The bill which passed the
House provided, in place Of the present law
penalty of FIVE times the excessive charges :
and the Senate first amended the bill by per
hitting suits to be brought against managers,
receivers, lessees, mortgages, or other per
sons operating the road and after thus
amending it they rejected the bill By vote
of eighteen 10 nine.
Ii Is not worth while 10 charge any I'M
the bill. Some attorneys of the road voted
against it as they were expected To but il
is not entirely easy to see the reason for other
negative votes. If railroads afford To
carry freight from Boston 10 Chicago for
prices ranging from thirty cents to ninety
cents per hundred pounds. they can afford T.
carry it from Boston to Montpelier for con
-iderably less than ninety cents a hundred
pounds and vet the people along the line
of the road are obliged to pay these eXorbi-
tant rates. IN order that the people thou
sand miles away may have the benefit Of
cheap transportation. We have no objection
to railroads carrying freight a. cheap, pro
rata. for people in other states. as for people
IN own State. but when our merchants
and manufacturers are compelled u pay e1-
cessivc rates In order that merchants in Chi
cago may have transportation at one quarter.
per mile-what we have to paw. il i quite
time for the Legislature to interfere and if
the Legislature declines to interfere, it is
bound to give a better reason for leaving our
people at the mercy of these corporations.
than was given in the debate on this bill
1t appeared before the committee on rail
roads IN the hearing on this Mn Mer-
rill. the superintendent of the Vermont
Central road. testifying to the fact, ~ that the
actual cost of transporting ton oi first class
freight, n mile, was two cents. The Vermont
Central charges eighteen dollars a ton from
Montpelier to Boston, 206 miles. At two
-
roads four dollars and twelve cents for trans
porting the freight. leaving a margin OF
thirteen dollars and etghly-eIght cents rs the
profits af the trip. OF this profit the Yer
mont Central gets about one-t third in other
words il coste the Central. TO transport, the
ton Of freight % miles. TO White River
junction. one dollar and four cent? and 1t
receives about six dollars for the service
This is about five hundred per cent profit
The Central charges the merchants and
manufacturers in the vicinity of Montpelier
almost ten cents per ton per mile, when it's
superintendent admits that this is five times
what it costs the road to carry the freight
There is another view of the case The
last Railroad COMMISSIONER report had the
sworn statement OF the managers Of the
Vermont Central railroad, in which they
say they carried last year 1856. l29 tons
of way freight one mile. If they charged
for this freight ten cents per ton per mile,
as they charge merchants and dealers in
Montpelier, Mortified and Waterbury, they
would have received for way freight alone
! ,5Sl .5I2 90. But the road only received
fer aHits freight 81 ,2Os ,679 IL. The report
does mt show what proportion of these gross
receipts were for way freight, nor what pro-
portion of way freights as first. second, third
or fourth class. 1t does show, however. that
the road transported 25, 640, 400 tons of
through freight one mile and if the figures
could be seen, it would appear that this
through freight, although nearly twice as
as much the local freight, paid in the aggre-
gate less than one-half the gross receipts for
all the freight carried. We trust the present
Railroad Commissioner, Major Rounds, will
give, in his report to the legislature next year.
the gross receipts of these railroads for
through freights and for way freights, separ-
ately, that the people may see how much these
roads charge Vermonters in order that mer-
chants and others west of the great lakes
may have their freight carried for the bare
cost or less than cost. If those figures could
be published, We presume they would show
that through freights pay less than one
quarter. and probably less than one-ffth as
much per ton. as way freights. Yet these
railroads claim to be Vermont institutions