Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-12-06
THE GLOBE WEDNESDAY MORNING. DECEMBER 1882
ers, with the people, and the interests of
the people demanded live, active competi-

ers, with the people, and the interests of
the people demanded live, active competi-
ton.
W. K. ACKERMAN,
president of the Illinois Central, said that
he had not considered the question, but
that Mr.. Tucker knew all about it and
could speak for that road.
J.F. TUCKER,
traffic manager, said that Porter's princi-
pie was sound and sensible, and presented
the only permanent solution of railway
complications, which were becoming by
far too common.
E. O. RIPLEY,
general freight agent of the Burlington,
said that he sympathised with Porter. It
would be better both for the railroads and
the people, if territorial division could be
adopted by roads. A law should be
enacted similar to the one in effect in
England which required protector of a
new road to show that road was needed
and that it would pay.
PERCIvAL LOWELL,
general passenger agent of the Burlington,
said that Mitchell was right in what he
said about monopolists and Porter's prin-
ciple. This talk of dividing up the
country among railroads, saying to each
road: ''Thus far shalt thou go and
no farther" was wild and arrant nonsense.
Competition should exist among railroads
as much as any other business. 1t might
be wise to pass law against paralleling
| roads for a speculative purpose. Wild
schemes should be severely and heavily
sat down upon, but it was assuredly
against public policy to admit Porter's
claim. Building into another roads ter
ritory, when the building was pushed by
the responsible company for legitimate
ends, was a species of competitive enter
prise which most roads engaged in at some
time or other.
WIN. BARNER,
western agent of the Pennsylvania Coz
pany, said that he thought railro;
was justified in building wherever it chose.
Railroads usually built to pay, and if line S
we're extended into territory which dos S
not pay fair dividend on account Ct
competition as for other reasons, the own
ers of such roads must lose as matter of
| course. The principle of territorial diVis
ion was vicious, and no powerful, indie
pendent and progressive railroad company
would ever concede Porter's demand.
JUDGE 3ECKwITH,
| tho rvo,,oro1 eo1;o;4or IF tho Nbi G,
! ton, when Mr.. Porter's plan was brought to
| his attention, said:
Il don't know any state or county where
such state of things exist. I think the
scheme is simply impracticable. I don't
know any legal process by which its pro-
visions could be carried into effect, and !
don't think the courts would sustain any
such an agreement. 1t is certain that the
sentiment of the county would not.''
sWould the railroads themselves be
likely to keep the terms of such COM
pact?"
''No. Suppose one of our big dry goods
firms should agree to sell its goods only in
the north division of the city, another
only in the south, and third in the west
How long do you think they would keep
| that agreement? Or, if they did, it would
not bind all the other firms in the dry
goods business to follow that course. 1t
is the same with railroads.
! The first one is generally built into terri
tory which promises to pay eventually.
| Then, as soon as its business becomes
good, another company wants share of
| that business and builds another line. Men
will build railroads wherever they think
there is money to be made, and they have
a right to. A second company might be
kept from building another line tenn
porarily, but pretty soon a third company
would come along and would be under
no obligation to respect agreements
made by others not do so and so. There
are some places in Colorado along the line
of the Denver & Rio Grande, where there
is not room for more than one track
Argument might work IN that territory,
But out here on our broad prairies, where
every company that wants a share of the
business has a right and the will to reach
out for it, such doctrine will never hold
up"