Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-02-21
THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE ON GOV
ERNoR sTANFoRD's LETTER.

The New York Tribune, in candid and
argumentative review of Governor Stan
ford's letter in reply to the Chamber OF
Commerce of New York city, has the fol.
lowing:
1t is a pleasure to see great public
question discussed with vigor, frankness
and courage. There is SO much demagog-
ism and so much shallowness IN current
discussions OF the more difficult problems
OF the time, that foe or friend, II capable OF
approaching real merit, must rise from the
perusal of Governor Stanford's letter on
railroad regulation with a feeling of great
satisfaction. Whether one wholly agrees
with him, or wholly disagrees, it is impos
sible not to feel glad that the subject has
been handled with such manifest sincerity
and thoroughness OF conviction, such sim
gular courage, such complete mastery of
the matter IN hand, and such breadth and
power of reasoning.
With fairness it may be said that there
has been great deal too much attempt to
assert and set forth what are loosely called
q" the rights of the people against corpora
tions." Cheap demagogues in every vii
lage, in 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 it
to deprive certain property and enter
prise of rights or freedom, in order to
WELD such control as it is possible for the
people to exercise over the means OF trans
portation Is it for the interests OF the
people, in the long run, and all conse-
quences considered, to take from property
employed IN transportation the measure
of freedom enjoyed by property en-
ployed in farming, manufacturing or
trading? The correct statement OF the
question does not answer It, as some hastily
suppose. 1t is possible that there are
sound reasons, of public necessity and
public welfare, for denying ordinary free
dom or ordinary rights to property en-
ployed 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 correctly stated. All the clatter OF
shallow demagogues about the rights OF the
people is as barren, useless and irritating
as the popping Of tirecrackers on lndepend-
ence 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 ex-
ercise all the powers that they have, or to
deprive individuals of any rights that they
now enjoy.
The argument of Governor Stanford is
exceedingly forcible and clear. No one
else has made it so plain that railroads have
power to give minimum rates only where
they have power to charge maximum rates
upon business that is not thereby impeded
or checked. By depriving them OF power
to charge high rates upon freight which
easily pays such rates, the State would de-
prive them of power to give low rates to
other classes of business which can exist
only if low rates are granted. Still more
forcible is his argument that 1t Is always
and everywhere the interest of transporta-
tion companies to build up new business
which will yield permanent revenue to
themselves. In the encouragement Of i'm
migration, of agriculture, of development
OF mines and of manufacturing, the rail-
roads have done and are doing vastly more
to build up the country and to insure its
prosperity than is generally understood.
In order to encourage this expansion of in.
dustries it is often necessary for railroads
to make determinations, because they can
not live if they give to all shippers and to
all kinds of freight as low rates as are often
given to establish new enterprises.
1t is well worth while, also, to observe
what Governor Stanford says of the prac-
teal effect of changes in rates. The con-
sumers, as he urges, do gain comparatively
little in times when low rates are secured
by competition or by legal interposition.
Neither do the benefits go in large measure
to the producers. The middlemen or
traders reap most of the benefit. 1t is,
therefore, pertinent and important ques-
ton whether the advantages which they
derive are, with respect to the welfare of
the whole community, sufficient to out
weigh the disadvantages which result from
a policy of restriction. The argument has
been clearly and forcibly presented in Gov
ernor Stanford's paper, and it must be re-
garded as most valuable contribution to
the discussion of difficult question.