The Abilene reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1886-04-29

which appertain to the operation of that
road as an entirety" Nj. Burnes asked:
Have You considered the question as to
whether there is any mode by which the
whole working force of a railroad can be
put under the control OF the people," Mr..
Could answered: Yes. sir: the laws do
that n0w. The difficulty is only in enforc-
ing them. lou see that on roads operated
by receivers, strikers are rapidly overcome
because there IS respect for the United
States courts. The public has q right TO
have railroads operated. ANY law which
defines that right and complies with its pro-
visions for arbitration wOuld be practical
solution OF the question, but the arbitration
should not be after men had struck
and seized the property OF the
railroad company. 1t should be the duty
of the men to keep on at their work. A
railroad IS not merely the rails, ties, grad
ing, locomotives and cars, but it is the
whole thing. II is the duty of somebody
to manage il"
PoWDERLY DOING TOO MUCH.
Mr. Gould continued: Il think that Mr..
Powderly is undertaking TO do too much.
All that l can do is to manage the Missouri
Pacific and l have no end of trouble with
that, but Mr. Powderly is running the
shoemakerS, the men who makes pegs and
leather, and all other tTadesmen, and not
only the employees of the Missouri Pacific
railroad, but Of all the employees on 10000
miles Of railroad. l do not wonder that he
has broken down under the load I think
the Government should have such right to
govern and control railroads as to have
trouble arbitrated, even without consulting
the companies or its employees"
MIR. RuTupS CupStiOnad- ssHrbv Iuarp NOT
your views that are friendly to arbitration
carried out at St. LOUISE
Mr.. Gould replied: "Mr. Hoxie has been
always ready to carry them out That has
been always our policy"
After the strike in 1885" continued Mr..
Gould, I'VE terminated our relations with
the Knights of Labor. They had taken
possession of our road. Then there was
new deal. We put them on a different
footing. We took pack the men. but we
took them back as individuals. We did not
ask them whether they were Knights of
Labor or MethodstS, or Baptists, or any
thing else. We did not propose TO deal
with Knights OF Labor as an organization.
Mr.. POwderly understood that distinctly
because L stated ii distinctly in that inter-
view"
Mr.. Burnes called attention to the order
referred to in the testimony Wednesday,
directing that no Knights of Labor be en-
p!oyed as foremen. Mi. Gould denied any
knowledge OF that order, but justified it on
the principle of not pU ting on guard any
except those who could be trusted.
AFTER RECESS.
The committee then took recess and re-
assembled at three p. H., when the eXamin-
alton was again taken Up. Mr.. Grain asked
Mr. Gould rs to the ways OF construction
companies in issuing stock to themselves
ont OF proportion to the work done, but Mr.
Gould denied any knowledge OF such trans
actions. He was then asked his
opinion as TO the cause OF the strike
and the only reason that occurred
10 him was the desire OF some of the
leaders to obtain n0toriety. He had never
heard OF and did not believe in such causes
Of complaint as Mr.. Powderly alluded 10 in
the first days testimony, such as the cheat
ing OK employees in The matter of hospital
taxation, homesteads and stores belonging
10 superintendent and fOremen.
Nh. Cultivate asked as to stock Specula-
tons growing out OF the strike, ard Gould
said that he knew nothing of the kind and
that 50 far as he was himself concerned he
had not made a transaction in stock either
long or short since January l, and had no
speculative interest in the market lie was
sure tiat none of the directors of tie Mis-
souri, Pacific had any dealings in tie stock
of the road on the days following his inter
view with Powderly.
Mr.. Outhwaite asked: "Whereir would
the public interests or the interests of the
company have suffered by the representa-
tives OF the company accepting the PROPOSE
ton o. the Knights of Labor?' and Mr..
Gould. after beating about the bush for
some little time, finally replied: THE men
did not pay any attention to The order. On
the contrary. Martin Irons tc!egraphed To
them te hold the fort They did net obey
the order and did not propose 10. [ didn't
understand that there WAS any agreement
made with Pcwderly. There was not wien
he left my house. did not know what he
was going to do. After he went out had
manned, as to what PGwderly would DO,
and l said he would do as he had prom-
Used.
Mr.. Burues inquired as to the gene
raj effect OF the pooling system, and Mr..
could replied that its general effect was
beneficial 20 the public because without it
most if not all, the railroads OF the country
would be in the hands OF receivers.
Nr. BurneS asked: why would that be
the result?'
Mr.. Gould answered: Because Of low
rates from excessive competition"
NJ. Burnes suggested that if pooling was
beneficial to the railroad companies it was
also beneficial to the people. Sir. Gould
answered: II think it Is. The public is
interested in having strong, able roads well
equipped. l have always found that real
estate sells higher and the people would
rather live Oh the lines of railroads that are
financially strong"
Mr.. Burnes inquired as to the general
proportion between local earnings and
through earnings of railroads, but Mr..
Gould declared himself unable to give in
OH that point. This closed Mr..
GOuld'S examination.
The committee at $50 adjourned