The Portland daily press., 1871-04-21
Grand Trunk Railway W. the People.

Grand Trunk Railway vs. the People.
To the Editor Of the Press:
The recent withdrawal of what has been
termed "return tickets" on the line of the G..
7. Railway, is but another evidence of the fix
ed determination Of the managers of that road
to withhold all reasonable accommodation from
the people who have been for years its constant
patrons. A few days after this decree came
from the autocratc head of the British monop-
oily, the passengers who took the early train at
a depot some forty miles north of Portland,
had to pay about tacelDe dollars extra for single
trip to Portland, in consequence of the with
drawal OF these tickets. is said the road
was never under obligation to issue return tick
cts at all. ask, why has it done it for years,
in the past? While this arrangement has been
great accommodation to the people, and
largely increased the amount of travel over
the road, it has been sound and healthy f.
nancial operation for the corporation. The in
crease in travel has more than compensated
for the reduction in fares. The people have
been accommodated and the road made money
out of the arrangement, and the question re-
turns, why has it been discontinued? But one
answer can be given-it was an arbitrary exer.
cise of power to show ''little brief authority"
insult the people and bid defiance to all State
legislation relating to the public good, when
made applicable to railroad corporations I
am we'll aware that the Act of the last legisla-
| tuT0 PdiHOdu COTpOIdLiOuSs 10 mduo
the Escape goat" by the managers Of the Grand
Trunk. They say that if a passenger purchas-
es a return ticket at a reduced rate of fare, it
is special contract, and if they see fit to stamp
upon the ticket, good for this and the next
succeeding day only" or words to that effect,
then the holder has nc legal right to ride upon
the road under that ticket on any other days.
cannot stop now to argue the question, either
pro or con, but supposng this position as a le-
gal proposition is sound, could the Act referred
hn <r 81
would it not by the courts be construed as ap-
plying exclusively to tickets issued at the ordi-
nary usual rates. On the other hand, suppos.
| ing the courts should decide that the Act
reached these special tickets, how can the road
be damaged by such an application of the law
| 1t is true the Act declares tickets good to the
holder for six years, but the answer to this is
1st that the road takes pay in advance both fol
| the outward and return trip; it takes full
| consideration and contracts to carry the pas
/ senger to the point of destination, and bring
| him back to the starting point. I'd, while the
Act gives the ticket holder six years in which
/ TO go and return, no person would be gone lon
| ger than absolutely necessary to complete thei
business. Sd, the travel upon the road would
! upon the average, be so evenly distributed q!
| to time, that the road would suffer no incon
| venjence from want of car accommodations
/ and 4th, if from sickness, accident or Other
| causes beyond the control of the ticket holder
he cannot return upon the first or second day
| it is piece of gross injustice to compel him t.
pay full fare for his return, when he has Onct
l paid for it, and has ticket in his pocket as ev
| idence of that fact.
The Grand Trunk ought to understand on,
thing, that the people who do business on tha
road are not SO stupid or ignorant as not to un
derstaDd their rights, and something about tn
legal relations existing between both parties
they are not 80 lost to feeling as not to apprec
late favor, or SO destitute of self-respect as t
kiss the hand that smites them.
Oxford, April 20, 1871. J. j. P.