National Republican., 1883-01-10
HEWITT ON MONOPOLIES.
Ho Thinks the States Should Settle Trouble
some Railway Questions
And Sees no Occasion to Make Them Party
Issues la Coming Campaigns.

"Will you favor The REPUBLICAN with
your views ON the anti-monopoly demand for
legislation by congress?' This question was
addressed TO Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, and the
kindly but not elusive answer was:
81 know of no reason why should not"
A few hours later the gentleman was found
at his room in Wormley's hotel, when, having
Hospitality seated the questioner, he proceeded
to knock the wind out of that timid mortal
by asking:
"Wcll, sir; what do you mean hy o monop-
oly2 There are many things that might
be called a monopoly If | were TO regard
this room as mine and ask you to go out of it,
and at the same time ask the judge here to
remain, suppose that would be some peo-
pies idea of n monopoly, and ," he added, 81
want to know what the grievance Is? who is
suffering from any monopoly, and what is the
mattcrp
After some modest protesting on the part of
the questioncr that he could not rally him
self then and there sufficiently to define the
term monopoly, and in that connection ex-
plain all the grievances the people of the
United States imagine themselves subjected to
on account of monopolies, the question was
modified, and Mr.. Hewitt was asked how any
of the real or fancied wrongs touching inter-
state commerce could be righted by congress,
and how their treatment could be made to
affect parties.
To begin WITH ho said that he could not
understand why any complaint should be
brought against the railways when their
carrying rates had been coming down and
down, until they are only about one-third
what they were in 1S65, and he produced re-
ports and statistics to show that this is the
case. He said he had no doubt there were
abuses-in fact, he knew there wcre-fOr he
had been and now is made the victim of
them in the matter of overCharging by short
| roads, which are the feeders of the main lines,
and he thought there ought to be some
body to right wrongs and remove grievances,
! but he could not see how this was q matter for
either parties or congress- The states must
control the matter of transportation within
! their borders. lu describing the point of
| passage in transportation between one state
and another he made use of the diilerental
calculus in illustration, but was kind enough
to expect no accurate understanding of the
reference. He said the whole question
was one of Misrepresentation. He knew
there were inequalities, distractions and
| annoyanCes in the carrying trade, and to
show how these may be overcome he cited
Massachusetts, in which state railway COM
mission, with no authority to demand any
thing of the railways, had, by reasoning
with them on points of overchargng, &c,
secured justice and stopped all COM
| plants. He believed the states should
do this in every instance, if anybody. He
said he thought what the next congress
would be justified in doing would be to APP
point commission to hear complaints and
! inquire into abuses he had introduced bill
| in the fOrty-tifth congress which named as
such a commission Judge Cooley, Charles
Francis Adams, and G. Henry Fink, and he
| still believed in that plan as the only
one that congress could do anything
with. He said he took no stock in the clamor
for legislation by congress to regulate
local matters-in fact he believed that the less
congress meddled in state and municipal mat
! ters the better; he had come to Washington
to work for the repeal of laws, and not for the
enactment of more laws. Under the decision
of the granger cases, he said, the states have
full authority to regulate transportation,
| though he confessed that this decision of the
supreme court in some respects surprised
him. He thought tho trouble, If there
is any, comes from the fact that the
long lines of road are now doing business
! at a much smaller rate than any state would
| impose upon them. He said some of the state
laws that now prove obstacles We're made be-
fore there were railways running through the
states, and, of course, they do not fit the pres
ent state of things. The real grievances that
might come under the head of monopolics, he
considered, were those where grants were given
to aid one set of citizens to do what another set,
not having such grants, could not do but even
in cases where the privileges of n monopoly
of this sort have been given by congress he
believed in keeping the contract, or in in
Identification wherever special privileges
should be taken away. He did not, however,
wish to be understood or quoted rs tavoring
monopolies he was for the people as against
individuals, all the time and in all matters,
and he would be glad enough to help remove
grievances wherever they may exist but he
first wanted some one to point out the griev-
ance more especially than has ever been done
in the matter of freight rates.