Juniata sentinel. [volume] (Mifflintown, Pa.) 1846-1873, 1867-04-03

tn. free. railroad bill which was intro
duced LAZY winter by my distinguished
friend, ths Senator from Erie [ Mr.. Low
RY,l and gave satisfactory reasons, the
other day, for my opposition thereto. 1t
is not necessary to repeat those reasons
now. Whit l demand, in the name OF
the people,is liberal railroad law; not
one 10 name, simply, but in reality. Is
it not deludng and cheating the people
to call that a free railroad law which re-
quircs fifteen thousand dollars Of capital
stock for every mile Of road to be sub
seFlbed and paid in before anything can
DC done Senator'S know that this clause
will have the effect to embarrass railroad
companies, and to retard and prevent the
Development Of the country by internal
improvements; in short, that 10 railroad
would over be built under such n law ?
Al least | fear not, and is it not better
70 strike out such provisions
You have also intcrpolated into this bill
q most onerous condition in the shape Of
an individual liability clause, which is iu-
tended to intimila,e persons and prevent
them from taking stock. The Pennsyl-
vania railroad, that opened up and devcl-
oPed Central Pennsylvania, and TO which
tie State is indebted il such large meas
ures for its wealth ard prosperity, and
which is admitted to be the greatest and
best managed road in the United States,
has a special charter, 1t contains no
individual liability clause, and why should
such provision be embraced in this bill !?
When it was proposed to pass a law
similar to that of OHIO and New York,
!: was voted down, and no sufficient rca-
son has been or can be advanced to war
rant such action. And now when an
amendment is offered TO this bill, which
would tend to promote and encourage the
building of railroads the arguments ad-
sanco1 against it by its opponents are
equally futile and empty. And when il
is proposed to add section, in the
New Yolk law, simply allowing corpora
tons to connect their roads, and to en-
brace in this bill the provisions Of law
voted for by the Senator from Bradford
in 1861, We are tod it is wrong to do this
but why? Simply because nineteen
Senator'S say the bill shall not be changed.
y convincing reason.
Let law be passed allowing people to
build railroads wherever they choose, pro-
vided they pay for them as they go, SUBJ
Ject to reasonable restraints, and these are
contained, as fai as l think it necessary
to 80, in the provisions Of the act Of 1919.
\ liberal railroad law is not demanded
by the people Of Pittsburg alone, but by
the people of the entire State. A law
SO liberal that charters can be obtained,
that capital will be invested and railroads
constructed under it without the corpora
tors being obliged to come to the Legis-
lature. 1t is plain to ME that q majority
Of the Senate differ with me in my views.
Ny votes on the bill in committee of the
whole as well as in the Senate, have uni
formly been for what l thought was the
most liberal policy. We Of the minority
have briefly and explicitly as possible
stated tae reasons for our votes. We see
and know that third cannot vote down
two-.hirds. And when the bill, clothed
in the precise language that it came from
the Railroad Committee, not changed in
letter, wo,d or line, is about to pass, we
are taunted that we have been able to
give ro good reason tor our votes, and
that our efforts to amend the bill, as it
came from the Railroad Committee have
only added increased strength to the me-
jority and added a renewed determina-
tion Oh their part that the bill shall pass
uaameDded aud unchanged, either in the
sections voted On or in those which are to
follow. The Senator from Bradford,
Mr.. LANDoN] desires that the issue
shall be made, SO that the people shall
understand it. The Senator is clever az
well as bold; and as he thus declares
that the bill as reported by the Railroad
Committee is perfect as it can lie made,
permit NE to point out what think are
striking defects in it.
First. l think the amount of capital
stock per mile required is too large, and
that it may tend to discourage the con-
struction Of railways. can see no rea-
son why the amount should be larger
than is now required in the general law