New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-02-04
RAILROADS. AND POPULAR RIGHTS

RAILROADS. And POPULAR RIGHTS.
1t Is a pleasure to see a great public Qurs-
ton discussed with vigor, frankness and
courage. There is so much dcmag0gism and
so much shallOwness i'll current discussions OF
the more difficult problems of the time, that
foe or friend, if capable of approaching real
merit, must rise from the peruSal of Governor
Leland Stantord's letter on railroad regulation
with a feeling OF great satisfaction. Whether
one wholly agrees with hlm, or wholly dis
agrees it is impossible not to feel glad chat
the subject has been handled with such mani
fest sincerity and thOloughne>s of conviction,
such singular courage, such complete mastery
of the matter III hand, and such breadth and
power of Tcas ming.
Mr.. Stanford, as is natural, looks at the mat
ter from the railroad owners point Of view.
1t was time for some one to present that side.
With fairness it may be sid that there has
been Il great deal too mach attempt to assert
and set forth what ae loosely called " the
rights of the people against cOrpOratiOn,.'
Cheap demagOgues IN every village, III most
of the corner groceries, and in all the
legislative bodies, have been spOuting for
years, in utter Ignorance of the fact that the
interests of the people, and not their rights,
are at stake. Strip the question Of all husks,
and ii is this: Can the people AFFORD to de-
prive certain property and enterprise OF rights
or freedom, in oder to WELD such control as
1t is possible for the people TO exercise over
the means of transportation Is it for the
interests Of the people. i'll the long run and
all consequences considered, to take from
property employed III transportation the meas
urc of freedom enjoyed by property employ cd
i'll farming. manufacturing trading The
correct statement of the question does not
answer it, as some hastily suppose 1t is pos
sibe that there are sound reasons, OF public
necessity and public welfare, for denying
ordinary freedom or ordinary rights to prop
crty employed IN this branch of business. But
one thing is certain. No progress whatever
toward a correct decision of the question can
be made, until the question has first been cor
rectly stated All the clatter of shallow dema-
gogues about the rights of the people Is as
barren, useless. and irritating as the popping
of frecrackers on Independence Day In this
country the people have now, and will have, all
the rights and all the powers that belong to
them. The question is whether they can afford
TO exercise all the powers that they have, or
to deprive individuals of any rights that they
now enjoy.
Governor Stanford maintains that the people
cannot afford to deprive those individuals who
are engaged in transportation of any part of
their property or their freedom. He loses a
little time, as we think, III questioning the
legal souDdness of the decsiO' of the Su-
preme Court in the Granger C. ~. In free
country denial of popular Omnipotence only
stirs up all the demagogues. The railroad
companies have generally made q mistake
in denying the power of tho people to
DO this or that. What the people want to do.
in this country, they will do wise or unwise,
just or unjust sensible or suicidal. The only
way to prevent the doing of bad thing is to
convince the people that it is q bad thing
either unjust, or inexpedient, or both. Governor
Stanford sets himself to do just what the rail-
road companies ought to have done long ago.
He presents frankly and forcibly the reasons
for respecting and guarding the rights of
property employed in transportation, and for
leaving it as free as property engaged in
other business. 1t cannot be said that his
argument upon the legal phase of the ques-
ton is particularly effective. 1t all turns upon
the plea that the right of eminent domain is
exercised only by the State. and only upon the
theory that investment by the railroad in
corporators of their time and private property
is of o character highly beneficial to the
public" Very true; and in order to keep it
| beneficial to the public, as the State assumed
and hoped that it would be, the State exercises,
| sometimes in charters or grants, sometimes in
| laws, and sometimes through Commissioners,
its powers of restriction or regulation. All
| investments must be presumed to have been
made in the understanding that the State
| could and would. if necessary, exercise what
| ever powers it has to that end. The question
of questions is whether it is either necessary,
| or wise, or just, to exercise power in the
modes or to the extent proposed
Upon this question, the argument of Governor
| Stanford is exceedingly torclble and clear. No
| one else has made it 80 plain that railroads
| have power to give minimum rates only where
| they have power to charge maximum rates