River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1881-02-03
BLOATED INSOLENCE.

Granger Decisions" also Very Dis
gushing to au AutOcrat of Taste and
Culture.
San Francisco, CAL, Jan. 22-Leland
president of the Central Pa
cific railroad company, this morning,
in three column article, answers the
questions propounded by the New
York board of trade committee on
fares and freights, and also Judge
Blacks opinion. He starts out with
the proposition that the Declaration Of
Independence clearly enunciates the
principle that governments are insti-
tuted to secure to the people their life,
liberty, and pursuits of happiness. He
continues that tariffs and the supervl-
sion of commerce and trade originated
in barbarous age, and sprung from
robbery and rapine. If the question
control were threatened pure
ly from a legal standpoint, he would
have nothing to say, because it is stare
deciSis.
THE ESSENCE OF OWNERSHIP Is CONTROL
and the value of property consists in
profits derived. He refers to the de-
cision of the Granger cases" and says
there was violent assumption of
fact to sustain the ground taken that
the right of legislature to control the
use and benefits of the property of
private individuals in connection with
til cir own personal services was to be
determined by the nature of the bust
ness or the number of people with
whom it is transacted. 1t does not fol-
low that warehouseman does bust
ness with a large number of people.
One man might tax his entire capacity.
There is, therefore, no limit to a courts
power over individuals, and such de-
cision contravenes the fundamental
principles of government. Mr.. Stan
ford, therefore, asserts that the Granger
decisions are
FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THE PRINCE
Piles OF A FREE GOVERNMENT.
1t was never intended that this
should be a paternal government. Mr..
Stanford then treats the subject in it,
politico- economic aspects, and denies
that railroads are public highways and
common carriers, deriving their fran
chise and existence from the public.
Corporations are formed by individuals;
the stock holders contribute TO The pros
perity, and the state no more creates
it than it creates joint partnerships.
1t asserts that it has never been the
practice of railroad companies with
which he is connected to discriminate
in rates in favor or against any localities
or persons. They only consider their
OF al,
to carry freight for less money long
distance than shorter, and do so be-
cause it is better to make a small profit
than none This is the universal bust
ness principle. The Centrai Pacific
company also has
SOME REGARD FOR THE DEvELOPNEST OF
THE COUNTRY,
and is governed somewhat by climatic
difficulties encountered in transporta-
ton. However, railroad rates have
been steadily reduced, until they are
now below what even the New York
committee would have thought posi-
bic. The higher the maximum rate,
the lowe is the possible minimum.
Given certain amount to be earned,
and reduction Of the maximum ne
cessarily increases the minimum.
Great efforts are made to reduce the
rates, which, if successful, would inure
to the benefit, not of the laboring men,
but to the business men almost solely;
it would benefit the producer, not the
consumer. He has no objection to a
commissioner to inc uire into the ques-
tons of justice between carrier and
patron, but does object to commission
ers to exercise control over the pro-
perty of others.
Mr.. Stanford declares that he was not
aware that competition is mainly sup
planted by pooling arrangements.
POOLING
reaches only through business of few
roads. There is no justice III limiting
earnings. 1t is the concern of the
companies themselves, and nobody 5
business whether capital is increased
or not.
As to the railroads contributing large
sums to control elections, that is neither
better nor worse than for private indi-
viduals to do the same. If railroads
do it, it is because aggressions and self
defense forces them to it. If roads are
left untrammeled, there will be no
cause to ask, as the New York commit
tee do, if the power of the roads does
not encourage communism and an an
tagonism of capital and labor. Com
munism comes not from people seeking
to control their own property, but from
those who wish to contrO' and regulate
the property of others and the labor Of
others. What the committee seems to
propose is
COMMUNISM AND KEAREYISM ITSELF.
He discusses legislative control OF
railroads at length, and outlines the
difficulties that would be encountered
as to mileage, climate, cost, character
of country, people, class of goods
moved, distance, etc, and says such
legislative control would be less Just
than the rates of the companies them
selves. He concludes with the asser.
ton that the control of the railroads
should vest with the owners, unless
outright purchase is made by the state
Mr.. Stanford then more briefly an
swers Judge Blacks argument. He
says the difficulties of regulation upon
the ground that the constitution gives
the United States power to regu.
late commerce among states are
PRACTICALLY INsURMOUNTABLE,
rs barriers would be erected 10 com
merce between individuals living in
different states that would not exist be
tween individuals living in the same
state. AS to the government loan to Cen
tral Pacific every dollar loaned by the
government went into the construction,
with a much larger sum from other re-
sources Of the company. The cost Of
grading the first $50 miles of the road
from San Francisco eastward more
than sufficient to grade single track
from the Rocky mountains to the Hud-
son river. He reasserts, finally, that
any reduction goes to the benefit of
the comparatively wealthy middlemen
between the producer and consumer.