Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-12-06
TERRITORIAL RIGHTS,
OF CL4SHING RAILROID
INTERESTS.
The Views of Prominent Magnates on the
Principle-SOme Declare the Position
Well Taken, but Others Say 1t Is Stuff and
Nonsense-An Interesting Addition to
the Literature of the War.
Especial Telegram to the Globe. |

Especial TELEGRAM to the Globe.
CHICAGO, Dec. 5.-The position lately
taken by Mr.. Porter, president of the Chi
cago, st. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha rail-
road, has raised a question comparatively
new in the West, and one of far wider i'm
portance than any other growing out of
the recent railroad complications. The
public is comparatively uninterested in the
percentages. divisions, private compacts,
| or internal workings of the warning roads,
so long as it is served at reasonable
| compensation. 1t views the present rail-
| road war much as it would a game of
chess or the latest comedy, knowing full
well that when the last move has been
made and the curtain has fallen, old rates
will be restored and the roads will pocket
their losses. Surplus earnings may be a
little less and dividends smaller, but pub
lie interests have not been hurt, or it is
thought they have not, and everybody is
willing to trust to the sport of rivalry and
emulation to secure more equitable treat
ment from the railroads than hostile legis-
| lation can secure.
| Mr.. Porter, however, will not let the
present war cease, or even call
truce until he has Sc
cured the recognition of what he called
his principle, which he presents as the
panacea for the overbuilding of railroads,
| for bankrupt railroads, and for an impend-
ing panic, compared with which the panic
| of 1873 will be period of remarkable
prosperity. Mr.. Porter's ultimatum, in his
own language. is as follows:
''The railroads should agree as to what
territory each will protect, and what terri
tory has legitimate business connection
with each line, and each railroad should
agree to occupy and protect the territory
consigned to it, and should build such ex-
tensions from time to time into it as the
buriness should require and will support
Further, each railroad should guarantee not
to trespass on the territory
of other roads by extending its
line into the territory which it has been
decided has business connection with
another road.''
In the view that the opinions of railway
men, when years spent in the service has
served to make them experts on matters
relating to railroads, would be of interest
on the now absorbing question of terrific
rial division number of representa-
tive men were seen yesterday on this sub
| ject, and succinct statements of their
opinions are given Glow:
H. H. PORTER.
president of the Chicago, st. Paul, Min
neapolis & Omaha road, has expressed an
opinion, on this subject, which has already
| been g iven. If the present condition sof
things continues, he regards a
| panic inevitable. Yesterday he said he
had no faith that the meeting in New York
on Friday would result in any agreement
The principle which he had enunciated,
however, was sound one, and was bound
| eventually to win, and until the doctrine
of territorial division was recognized,
there would be no restoration of rates in
the Northwest.
ALEXANDER MITCHELL,
president of the Milwaukee & st. Paul. is
quoted as having said that Porter's de-
mands were unjust. The Milwaukee & St.
Paul claim the right to extend its lines in
to any part of the country when necessity
seems to demand it, and where
the conditions of the country
warrants to aid construction. Mr..
Porter's demand was against the interests
OF the people, and meant monopoly and
high rates, and if carried out would result
in serious Gripping of the railroad in
terest Of the country. A division of bust
ness or an agreement to maintain rates
might be fair enough, but no road could
consistently agree not to extend its line
whenever and wherever necessary. Such
an agreement would be in direct opposi-
ton to the interests of the stockholders
and the public.
S. S. MERRILL.
general manager of the same road, states
that the arrangement suggested by Mr..
Porter would be so plainly against public
interest that the legislatures of the West
ern states would rise up against the rail-
roads and enact laws much more unfayor-
able than any now in effect This was a
broad and free country, and corporations
had already advantages enough in the ag-
gregated capital which they could COM
mand, without uniting in compact to
drive out competition and make rivalry
impossible.
r. Z. CABLE.
of the Rock Island, said that Porter's de-
mand for territorial division was perfectly
just. Such an arrangement would be bet
ter for the railroads and for the people.
Whenever two or more roads get
into war the inevitable
result was to pool the business, and the
people had to pay for the fixed charges of
two or more roads and sustain the pool
besides. If the Territory had been divided,
as Porter's proposition contemplates, the
people would have to sustain only one
road.
II. G. WICKER,
traffic manager of the Northwestern, said
a system of territorial division was in eff
feet in England, which had been found
perfectly satisfactory. Any person or
corporation desiring to build new road
was required to show that necessity for
such road exis4ad and that +ha rood xrbo,,