The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1881-02-02
THE PENNSYL HANIA Il. r.. co.
AND THE List ELECTION"


AND THE LAST ELECTION" $
Under the above head, the Trenton State
Gasctte Of yesterday attempts an apology for
the course of the Pennsylvania r. II. Co. in
aiding the election of Ludlow for Governor,
and sets out to give the PLAIN and indisput-
able facts in the case, So far from giving
'faces, . it misrepresents them. and there is
scarcely statement made that will not be
disputed by any person cognizant of them
who is not a tool Of the railroad company.
Its opening statement that the company
gave no orders . totheirmen to vote against
Potts, is flisingenuous. 1t says, further;
1.-The most that was done was to offer a mild
request TO the employees that they vote for
Nj. Ludlow, as bis election would be pro
motive of the Company's interest,"" Now,
every intelligent person knows that no shrewd
officers of company would dare to peremp-
toriIy,~ order their men to vote for certain
candidate, as they would throw themselves
liable to indictment under the election law.
The men understood it as an order lone
of the iron. hand kind, enclosed in kid glove
and we personally know poor men Tenn
ployes of the Company who voted for Ludlow
because they feared discharge if they did not
do so. The Gazettes talk about there being
no suggestion of compulson, of coercion"
and no intimation that neglect to obey it
would be followed by dismissal, etc., is fool
ish and deceiyes no one, not even its editor.
People who know the Pennsylvania r. r. Co.
- l..
of issuing "mild requests y which it doesn't
care whether men obey or not. If the Com
pany cared so little about it, pray tell us why
it took any action at all
Its claim that not {" score of votes were
changed by it in the whole State - is ridicu--
lous. An intelligent Pennsylvania railroad
employe who assisted in enforcing the " mild
request" claimed that from forty to fifty
votes were affected in Lambertville alone.
Another employe informed as that he knew
of over thirty men who we're frightened by
the "mild request into voting for Ludlow.
Its analysis of the vote of the State proves
nothing SO far as the influence of the Com
pany is concerned. The fact that Mr.. Potts
ran ahead of his ticket in some counties where
there are large numbers of Pennsylvania rail
road employees, does not prove that he did not
lose votes there by their interference.
The Gazette winds up by saying, the case
should be fully understood in order to deter
mine with equity the measure of censure to
which they are ameuable."
II the case - should be fully understood, y
why did not the Gazette fully state t2 We
will supply some additional facts:
Some time previous to the holding of the
State Republican Convention to nominate
candidate for Governor, Mr.. Potts decided to
withdraw as a candidate and so announced
Subsequently, he was urged by Gen. Sewel
and others to run. lie refused because, for
one reason, party lines would be closely
drawn during a national campaign and with
the opposition which he anticipated from the
Pennsylvania r. r. CO., he thought there
was little prospect of success. Gen. Sewell,
after consulting with the Penna. r. r. Off
cials, assured Mr.. Potts that they would keep
out of the fight, and with that assurance he
consented to become q candidate. All know
what the outcome was. Three or four days
before the election, the Company violated
their pledge of neutrality (t is said at the mr.
gent opportunities of Kelsey & Co., of the
State House Ring), and took an active part
in defeating the Republican candidate for
Governor. 1t is just, however, to'say, that
this course did not have Gen. Sewell's sane
ton.
Now, in the light of these facts, should the
Company be let down as easily as the tjazefts