Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-01-24
RAILROAD CONTROL.
PROTEST OF PRESIDENT STANFORD
AGAINST GRANGER LEGISLATION.
Such Decisions Flagrant Violations Of the
Principles Of Free Government "A De-
NAL that Railroads are Free Public High
ways and Common Carriers-And an
Assertion that Railroad Control Should
Rest Absolutely With the Owners.

| Rest Absolutely With the Owners.
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 22.-Mr. Leland Stan
| ford, president of the Central Pacific railroad
| company, In q three column article, answers
the questions propounded by the New York
board of trade committee on fares and freights,
and also the letter containing Judge Blacks
opinion. He starts out with the proposition
that the declaration of independence clearly
denunciates the principle that governments
are constructed to secure to the people their
| life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. He
continues: Tariffs and supervision Of COM
merce and trade originated in barbarous age,
and sprung from robbery and rapine. If
the question of railroad control were
treated purely from legal standpoint,
no would have nothing to say, because
is the control and value of property 1t consists
in profits derived. He refers to the decision
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 private individuals, in connection
with their own personal services, was to be
determined by the nature of the business or
the number Of people with whom it Is transact
ed. It does not follow that where several men
do business with large numbers of people, one
man might tax his entire capacity. There is
therefore no limit to the courts power over
individuals, and such decision contravenes
the fundamental principles of government
MIR. Stanford, therefore, asserts that
THE GRANGER DECrsIOSs
are fragrant violations of the principles of
free government. 1t was never intended there
should be O paternal government. he then
treats the subject in It's polite. and economic
aspects, and denies that railroads are free
public highways and common carriers, de-
irving their franchise and existence from the
public. Corporations are framed by individual
stockholders, who contribute the property,
and the State no more creates it than 1t creates
joint partnership. He asserts 1t has never
been the practice of railroad companies with
which he is connected to discriminate in rates
In favor OF or against any locality or persons.
They only consider their treasury. They some
times are obliged to carry freight for less
money long distance than shorter, and do
so because it is better to make small profit
than none. This Is
UNIVERSAL BUsIN Ess PRINCIPLE.
The Central Pacific company also has some
regard for the development of the country, and
is governed somewhat by climatic difficulties
encountered in Transportation; however rail
road rates have been steadily reduced, until
they are below what even the New York CON-
mittee could have thought possible. The high
er the maximum rate, the lower is the posi-
BILE minimum. Given certain amount to be
earned, and reduction of the maximum neces-
sarily increases the minimum. Great efforts
mada tn reduce rafpa if sncceaafu1 yv0u1d not
inure to the benefit of the lot of labor, but to
business men almost solely. 1t would benefit
the producer, not the consumer. he had no
objection to inquire into the questions of JUS
tice between carrier and patron, but he does
object to commissioners to exercise control
over the property of others. He was not
aware that competing is mainly supplied by
POOLING ARRANGEMENTS.
Pooling reaches only to the through bust
ness of few roads. There is no justice in
limiting earnings. 1t is the concern of the
companies themselves, and nobody's business
whether capital is increased or not. AS to
railroad companies giving large sums to con-
troll elections, that is neither better nor worse
than for private individuals to do If some of
the railroads do it, it is because aggression and
self.defense forces them to 1t. If tools are
left untrammeled there will be no cause to
ask as New York does, if the power of the
roads does not encourage communism and the
80. ANTAaoNIsM OF CAPITAL AND LABOR.
Communism comes not from people seeking
control of their own property, but from those
who wish to control and regulate the property
of others and labor for others. What the
commission propose is communism and
Kearneyism. He discusses the Legislative con-
troll of railroads at length and outlines the
difficulties that would be encountered. AS to
mileage, climate, cost and character of the
country, people, class of goods moved dis
tance, ETC., he says, such legislative control
would be less just than the rates of the COM
panies themselves. He concludes with the re-
assertion that the
CONTROL OF THE RAILROAD COMPANIES
should rest with the owners, unless outright
purchase is made by the State. He then more
briefly answers Judge Blacks argument. He
says the difficulties Of regulation upon the
| ground that the constitution gives the United
Strtes, are practically unsurmountable. Com
merce between individuals living in different
States would not exist between individuals liv-
| ing in the same State. As to government aid
| to the Central Pacific, every dollar loaned by
| the government went into construction, with
much larger sum from other resources of the
company. The grading of the first $50 miles
| of the road from Sacramento eastward, was
more than sufficient to grade the same track
| from the Rocky mountains to the Hudson
river He reasserts, finally, that any reduction
goes to the benefit Of the comparatively
/ wealthy, who are middlemen between producer
and consumer.
NTn,,;n NNolr.r. IT, Nich<