Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-04-06
IN THE ELEGISLATUlsE.
The Bill to. Prevent Telegraph Consolida'

Vne Dill %. TToVonC VoIeSropn SouSOhu0tAOu
In the Senate yesterday the special order
was the consideration on final passage of
the bill to escheat to the commonwealth
the telegraph lines and property of tele-
graph corporations, associations and COM
panies which violate the provisions Of the
constitution, prohibiting the consolidation
with or the holding of a controlling inter
est in the stock or bonds of competing
line Of telegraph or the acquisition by
purchase or otherwise Of any other COM
peting line Of telegraph.
Mr.. Gordon advocated the passage Of
the bill. He said the consolidation de.
mands the proposed legislation. For six
years the Legislature had neglected to per
form its duty in this respect. Conso!iia-
ton had become alarming in its magni-
tude. He criticised the speech OF Mr.
Cooper, who had opposed the bill because
it would prevent railroad corporations from
competing in the business of telcgraphing
with the great telegraph companies. lie
was astOnished at the arrogance of any
corporation that claimed exemption from
the provisions of the constitution.
Mr.. Cooper thought that if the railroad
corporations were invested with the power
to carry on telegraphy tor profit the effect
might be the breaking up of the existing
monopoly.
Mr.. Gordon said the constitution stepped
in and confined railroad companies to the
business of common carriers. The bill was
for the purpose of furnishing corporate
lawlessness ald it's defeat would be tri-
umph of lawlessness.
Mr.. Lee made an argument i'll favor OF
the measure. He said corporations had
arrOgated to themselves extraordinary
powers in addition to those conferred on
them by legislation. They had accumu
lated enormous capital, made provision
for the exemption from personal liability
of stockholders, had been granted the
right of eminent domain and the franchise
Of common carriers. 1t had been proved
by incontestible evidence that this was the
case.
Mr.. Lee asked the Senate whether the
grasping corporations shall continue to
trample on the rights of the people. Are
We willing that this great monopoly
(meaning the Western Union) shall con-
tinue to swallow up other corporations
An irresistible conflict is in progress be-
tween inordinate corporate power and the
rights of the people.
Mr.. Stewart thought there was no bill
of such Importance before the Legislature
as the one under consideration, but he
recognized the danger Of its defeat with
out any substantial argument against it.
The measure was reasonable il its proviS
ions and contemplated no violence on cor
porate rights. According to the argu-
ment of the senator from Dauphin there
were twenty-four telegraph companies do
ing business in this state, and yet only
one was exercising its corporate rights.
The recent consolidation was not for the
benefit of the people, but to still further
tax the industries of the state and to en-
rich the stockholders. The people de-
mand relief from monopoly which gathers
in his enormous NAV all rival corporations.
Mr.. Cooper said he was opposed to the
bill because he was in f;ivcr of free tclc-
graphing. No senator could be more bit
terly opposed to telegraph monopoly than
he. He was in favor OF allowing railroad
corporations to carry Oh tho telegraphing
business, believing that it would result in
breaking down monopoly. Being pointed
to the fact that the constitution prohibited
such business, no said the constitution
had been imperative and intimatcd that
it would be better If no change were
made.
Mr.. Herr said he would not join in the
cry against corporations, which had done
SO MUCH for the development Of the state.
Much OF the argument in favor Of the bill
was clap-trap and defamation. He was
particularly opposed to the bill because it
might affect vested rights i'll other words.
retroactive in its operations.
Mr.. Norris said he would support the
bill but he did not endorse the indiscrim
inate attacks made on corportions, most Of
which had been Of great benefit. He
Thought they had done mere good than
evil. That he was opposed TO the further
exercise of consolidating power on the
part of corporations. The recent consoli-
dation Of telegraph companies he dcnounc-
ed as Infamous. He was in. favor of q
government telegraph system.
Mr.. Craig remarked that if he entertain
ed and had given utterancc to the scnti-
ments expressed by Mr.. Cooper he would
consider that he had violated his oath to
support the constitution He was heartily
in favor of the bill and was glad to hear
that all senators recognized the necessity
of some legislation to compe! corporations
to obey the provisions of the constitution.
Mr.. Hall did not think it was necessary
to make any speech in favor of the bill, as
the argument had been all ON the side of
the measure He referred to the fact that
the only senators who had spoken against
the bill argued from different st,mlpoints,
the senator from Dauphin irari,r. that il,
would have a retroactive effect, nrnl the
senator from Delaware complaining. that it,
was prospective.
Mr.. Davis said tho argument ~ ih" nrm
atOr from Delaware was one in favor Of
anarchy and rebellion. lie in! !innt'rI that
tho I.ar of fin,1 hand t,,,i T..
Jay Gould, according to his rc.so,in%
The yeas and nays were called, with tho
following result
Yeas-Messrs. Anholi, Coke, Craig,
Davies. Emery, Evcrhart. Gordon, Grui
Hall, Hercter, HOLDEN, Kaufman, Laird,
Lawrence, Lee, McCrackcn, Mylin, New
myer, Norris, Reyburn, Ross. ScI,nat,crly,
Seamans, Sill, Stewart, Thomas and VOL
verton-27.
Nays-Messrs. Cochran, Cooper, paly,
Herr, Keefer, Lantz, Smiley, Smith, Up.
perman and Newell-10.
When the clerk began reading tho yeas
and nays it was discovered that the bill
lacked one of a constitutional majority,
and Mr. Ross asked that his vote be re-
corded.
Mr.. Grady objec, ed, but the chair ruled
that Mr.. Ross be permitted to vote and he
announced himself in the affirmative Mr.
Schnatterly followed by voting for the
bill.
At the evening session of the Legislature
the prohibitory constitutional amendment
was adopted after a running debate of
about an hour on the part Of Representa-
tives Wolfe, Faunce, Mackin, Bierly and |
other, by vote Of yeas 100. and nays so.
H. -. -