Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1874-09-17
The transportation Question.
EDIToRs OF THE ADVOCATE.

EDIroRs OF THE ADVOCATE.
| am urged to notice the Herald
editorial on my open letter, and there
fore presume upon your kindness.
The suggestion foreshadowed in
the heading of the editorial was evi.
IDENTIFY intended to subserve pur.
pose it could not fully accomplish by
attacking my arguments. But it
may be as well to say to the Herald
at the outset that / do not want 10
60 to Congress--to the House. !
prefer being sent to the Senate.
Without compromising on the lesser
dignity, decidedly prefer the more
compatible association. IL is holder
ii not nobler to enter the lists with
Carpenter. Mitchell, Orion and others
than to allow any redundancy of of
| fetal usefulness to be lost for want
of adequate occasion and purpose
Further it would be more gratifying
to find myself associated with those
great minds of tho u. s. Senate,
having no distressing doubt of she
congeniality or dread of contrast
Especially would it be extremely
gratifying TO be seated by the side of
Governor Booth, of California, whom
have known from boyhood, whose
father l served as o clerk for three
years, and who to-day is as sound on
ell the great problems of public in
terest as any man in tho nation. Nor
need my chances be hopeless.-Will
not Old Grant that has already hon.
ored mo beyond my merits send up
| members in nay interest Our Gen.
ator / think would like to have that
"yaller dog" suit / wore last winter
to go up to the U. 8. Senate ss an
advertisement to his wooden mills.
Will not the Herald come to my aid
merely out of completeness to differ
ence of opinion If can get Old
Grant solid and the Republican and
the Reform parties solid, and the
railroad interest solid there can be
no failure.
Now if the Herald man will cry
enough, | will without and seriously
proceed to consider tho tangible ar
gument in his editorial.
I want it distinctly understood,
however, that [ take no "cue" from
Matt Carpenter or any ether carpen-
ter or man. In fact. / detest the
word, and respectfully turH it over to
the use of the writer of the editorial
and that profession generally whose
methods of reasoning are both cramp
ed and distorted by undue subser-
viency to precedent. First princi-
pies are good enough for me, and if
the thinking of the editorial had been
trained exclusively into their logical
relationship, the author would not
have made the grave mistake of in
stituting a comparison between the
rights Of individuals and the rights of
corporations.
The rights of individuals arc iAhe-
rent. The rights of corporations are
ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the aggsgate
inherent rights of individuals. The
extent of the rights Of individuals is
limited only by such surrender as is
necessary to the existence of that
civil authority which for special OBJ
jects grants to corporations their
chartered rights. The extent of the
rights of corporations 10 found in the
strict letter of their charters. The
former may do anything the civil
authority docs not forbid. The lat
ter can do only such things as their
charters permit and that in strict
conformity with the objects of their
creation. Hencs the fallaey in rea-
soning, in the editorial, by compar-
ing things that are not alike, and the
error of conclusion that railways can
do what the citizen can in fixing the
prices of compensation.
The editorial says the address of
the committee "does not deBy the
power Of the state Legislature to fix
the rates of transportation" That is
true, but it says what"is practically
the same thing. It says "tho conse-
quences of a mistake would probably
be found most injurious if made by
the people," thus giving the railways
preference over the people in fixing
fares and freights.
The:editorial claims for the address
of the committee "those common
sense views that have uniformly been
advocated by the Herald" Certain
ly, 1 admit all but the qualifying
terms preceding "views." The adj
dress of the committee has probably
taken its "cue" from the Herald, and
although it does not say in so many
words what the Herald said the 18th
of last June, to wit: "But we do
hold that If the state possesses such
power" Chat of controD "over the
property and earnings of either indi-
viduals or corporations, it ought to
surrender that power instsnter by
change in its constitution" still it
says practically about the same
thing. For there is practically no
difference between denying che right
of control in one party and saying
that the other ought to exercise it.
There is practically no difference be-
tween denying legislative control Of
corporations by the state and giving
preference of control to railways over
the people, or saying shat the con-
sequence of q mistake would probably
be found most injurious if mace by
the people"
The allusion ia the editorial to the
suggestion of the address to purchase
the roads presume is dedicated spe-
cislly to the farm mortgagers of Wis
consin, with whom l moro than sus-
peet the author has enjoyed profess
sional relation.
The editorial says, "Mr. Youngs
counter address advises square conds-
cation.n That is not true. / have
done. have used argument to meet
argument. Iclose By using assertion
| 10 meet assertion, referring the read.
| ar an we'll AZ the editor to the record.