New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-23
NV ORLEANS REPUBL0AN. SUNDAY APRIL q, 1876

4. NEw ORLEANS
and developed his great doctrine Of gray
I itation. Nj. Mitchell has been met sud
denly and violently full in his politics
economy BY an editorial article Of tn
Bulletin. This sockdologer has cause,
! him to throw up an immense efusion o
bile, with many epithets wholly incom
patible with any sound state of stomach
It is not surprising that such blow
coming from such quarter should hav,
provoked any one. It is species Of pro
vocation under which the exasperatei
apostle smote off the ear Of the imperti
nent servant.
| Here, then, are some of his phrases
substituted for that calm and cunning
series of letters. The editorial missile ID
said to have been in fact thrown
BY some scribe who for Q pitiful consid-
GRAFTON would write upon either or both
sides Of any question at the same time for
his DOLE
1t is not surprising that questions Of
grammatical construction should arise
upon words uttered under the impulse
of passion. It can not from these words
be determined whether that scribe would
write on both sides of the same question
for the same pay. The scribe is pinioned
until he somehow gets mixed up with
Mr.. Wheelock-
Under these circumstances, to the public
ct large, it will appear that this writer, in.
stead of c0nvicting me of inconsistency-a
venia affair-exhibits Mr.. Wheel0Ck as Q
falsifier Of pledges and violator of promises;
not the purpose, presume, for which he
The interjected parenthesis leaves it in
doubt whether MI. Wheelock twas hired
for the purposes" attributed to the scribe.
The Bulletin is, however, held directly re-
sponsible:
The article is crowded with misstste-
ments, Misrepresentation and false reason.
ing drawn from premises that are assumed
and evidently known to be false.
The particular objection urged agains.
MI. Mitchell seems to consist in this:
This writer asserts that am anti.rail-
road, and one would infer from my present
utterances always was so, and that have
proclaimed my belief that all railroads are
ruinOus to cities. Now, it is utterly untrue
that am opposed to railroads or have pro-
claimed my belief that all railroads were
ruinous to cities.
M M;koh alI,c win d;noa;o,, osh:,,..1e e
q charge which if established could not fail
to seriously affect large class of persons,
is, we think, conclusive. He comedies to
all persons laboring under the hallucina-
ton that this or any other railroad will
pay, entire liberty to put their money
into its stock. They are, however, mott
fed that they must not expect "legisla-
tive aid" nor any additional tax upon the |
people.
Here we think the vindication should |
have stopped. No man can be "anti-rail-
road" who would allow people to build
road with their own money. We may
wen suppose that in denying Legislative
lid" it was not intended to refuse an act
If incorporation to such stockholders.
This doctrine would, it is true, have de-
'rived us of almost all our principal roads,
which from the Pontchartrain to the Union
Pacific have been built with legislative aid
md public credit.
While, then, it is proved that one pro-
essing such an opinion can not be "anti-
abroad" we have right to protest
gainst the introduction of an argument
o show that if people put their money
nto the New Orleans Pacific they will
lever get it out again.
1t is first assumed that because the
obstruction of the road has not been Sc
ured by the investment of private CAPT.
al in its capital stock, the road itself
'ill not be of public advantage" Here
J the corollary from the premises stated:
Therefore, l deduce that when efforts
ave been made to obtain stock subscrip-
ions to build . railroad, which have failed,
nd taxation is resorted to, it is prima
acie evidence that this road will not be
f public advantage.
He then completes the demonstrated
'ilure of the road, and triu mphantly
laims to- &
Have shown that railroads do not neces- 6
l,ily promote the prosperity of the cities into
hich they run.
We state the syllogysms thus: l.
'ailroads do not always promote the
of city. 2. A railroad which
IN not command the private capital to
uild it, would not, if it were built, pro-
lote the prosperity of city. 8. The
ew Orleans and Pacific Railroad belongs
} this class, therefore that road would
Of promote the prosperity of New Or I
ans.
The understanding that these private q
who could not build the i
'ad should be left to their own unaided Q
sources seems to have been, says Mr.. 8
itchell, ''the feature that commended Il
lis enterprise to me and to the Union" q
We can not see how newspaper with
~ chivalry in its composition should
I'VE permitted Mr.. Mitchell to bring the s
hole weight Of "me and the Union" to
ush out an enterprise whose inability is
sumed as proof Of its unworthiness. o
9, however, goes even further in demon VI
rating that he is not anti-railroad.
doing so, in our opinion, he violates ID
a rocfrictiops If 1oo;co1 dohofo Ho on | q