Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-04-11
TIE NEW YORK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND GOV. sTaNF0RD's LETTER.

Vie New 1OTk OnaHlDer Vi OOHlIH6ICe Ou
Governor Stanford's letter appears, judg-
ing from the telegraphic synopsis of the
document, to be very much the kind OF
manifesto for the composition of which
Judge Black has recently become notorious.
So far as can be perceived it embraces
nothing ike dignifed and intelligent ex-
animation of the principles and facts, but is
simply reckless gathering up of whatever
loose and irresponsible accusations came to
hand. The character of the reply may be
fairly gagged by the fact that nearly all
the specific charges of discrimination con-
tanned in it rest upon the authority OF ey
Congressman Daggett. Now Mr.. Daggett
either never did know anything about the
railroad question or never could discuss it
candidly. No public man has made him.
self responsible for more gross and sweep
ngmisstatementsa and misrepresentation, in
fact, andeven Judge Black might have taken
lessons from him in the art of substituting
fiction for fact. The specific instances OF
discrimination cited from MIR. Daggett's
speeches by the committee are in many
cases neither more nor less than iilustra-
tions of the unavoidable differences of
rate between competitive and non. COM
petitive points. The principle which I'M
derlies these differences is as inseparable
from the science of transportation as the
law of gravitation is from physics. but it
is clear that the New York Chamber of
Commerce has never taken the trouble to
investigate this subject for itself. and that
1t has been as willing as the lowest dema-
gogue whose falsehoods and fallacies it
adopts and retails, to have recourse to
these devices.
What the committee means by saying
that Governor Stanford alleges it to be
no worse for railroads to contribute to
control nominations or elections than for
" individuals we do not know. What
we do know, however, is that Governor
Stanford never said anything of the kind
in his letter, and that if such statement
is ascribed to him it is an impudent forgery.
The committee observes that " regarding
81 the denunciation of the decisions of the
" Supreme Court of the United States by
/" President Stanford, it is useless to argue. "
That is the first CLEAN Of common sense
the committee has exhibited. 1t is GER
tainly quite useless for them, or such as
them, to attempt an argument against
what Governor Stanford has said on this
subject, for the sufficient reason that they
are not capable of making any effective re-
ply. They may, however, think it worth
consideration that Governor Stanford is
not alone in believing the decisions cited to
be equally fallacious and mischievous. The
same view is held concerning them by
many of the ablest jurists in the country,
and we venture to assert that no intelligent
man who examines them dispassionately
can fail to become convinced that they are
contrary alike to every principle of equity,
and to sound public policy.
If the Chamber of Commerce possessed
the intelligence to be expected in such a
body, it would have realized long ago that
the decision in the case of Mum VS.. Hi
nois affects merchants quite as much as
common carriers and corporations. They
would have perceived that under that dc.
cision the right of ownership and control
over every description of private property is
denied and abrogated, and that the doc.
trine of the Court establishes a condition
of things in which the only barrier against
wholesale regulation of all occupations and
! businesses whatever consists in the caprice
of the Legislature. The truth is that the
Supreme Court, being DESTROYS of catering
to the Granger agitation of the time, and,
not finding it easy to erect invidious dis
tinctions between corporate and private
property, adopted the ingenious but dan,
gerous expedient of declaring all property
equally amenable to regulation, and thu:
laid the foundation for an era of commu.
nistic and subversive legislation which is
liable to open at any time.
| The Chamber Of Commerce states, as
/ though it were high crime and mis-.
| demeaucr, that Governor Stanford and his
associates have made large fortunes, begin
ming with small capital One would sup,
pose from this that in New York no man
/ is considered honest who does not COM
mence life with large means. Is it in
truth a remarkable or in any way singular
circumstance that men should begin poor
aud acquire riches through active ill.,
dustry? How many members of the New
York Chamber of Commerce became rich
in any other way? Or is it only through
the management OF railroads that men are
forbidden to grow rich? The fact is
that this is the lowest and most contem pit.
ible demagogism, utterly unworthy Of an
association presumably composed of repre-
sentative men, and what is still more to
the purpose, Of self. made men.
/ We viii engage that there is not one OF
these men who has ever failed to make all
he could out of his opportunities. There
/ Ia not one OF them who would not regard
1t IS an insolerable outraged Legislature
undertook to regulate his private business.
! There is not one who, if the doctrine were
applied to him personally, would not de-
clare it monstrous to assert that the Legs
lature was justified in fixing the profits OF
every business into which a public use
enters There is not one Of them who
would not refuse to invest his money in
railroad enterprises ii those enterprises
were supervised as the Chamber proposes.
There is not one of them who, as a business
man, would not find himself compelled to
repudiate the principles and propositions
which, as emanating from the Chamber OF
Commerce, they have put their hands to
in this report.
This report in fact is another proof Of
the low plane of intelligence upon which
the so-called Autobiography movement is
being carried on. 1t shows that the New
t Vorl, r,,a,,Lar4s ora not n whit in advance