Morning journal and courier., 1889-05-16
RAILROAD ARGUMENTS BEGUN.

Made-FEouse Chairman Brown's
 Bitter FIings-Governor BulkeleY
 NOminates Ex-Governor Andrews for
 Chief Justiee-Other Business.
 HARTFORD, Conn.,, May 15.
 Especial Correspondence of the JOURNAL AND | CoURIER.l
 l The debates on the railroad question began in the house to-day and continued with the
 noon recess up to four o'clock, when the
 house adjourned after making the question
 the order of the day for tomorrow mo-
 tion was made that the ballot be taken at
 noon tomorrow, but Representative Me-
 Crone moved that the debate close when it
 was finished. The motion was passed by
 the house, ridiculous as it was. At the close
 of the first days struggle on the floor instead
 of in the lobby both sides claim the suprem- 1 acy. If the debate indicated one thing
 more than another it was that the lead
 CTS, the men whom the house is &C.,
 customed to follow, oppose the parallel
 scheme. Before general discussion began
 MT. Holden of Derby, offered an amendment to the bill for public act reported by the
 railroad committee (the majority), which places the power of deciding whether public necessity requires new railroads in the hands of judge of the Superior court, instead of the railroad commissioners. The amend- ment was adopted. MT. Brown, the Housa- tonic, champion on the minority of the the 1 railroad committee, attempted to amend the
 bill with the whole of the minority report, | which the house sat down upon. MT. Brown then read from voluminous manuscript his long speech which occupied nearly half an
 hour and followed the lines of the
 Housatonics lawyers before the com
 mittee. He said that the legislature is
 expected to COW down in submission to the T~. slal l.
 of the whole subject. He insinuated that
 the majority report and argument preceding
 it were not prepared by any member of the committee; that many of the statements
 made in the majority report were false and none knew their falsity better than the members of the committee themselves. The I selfish greed of the Consolidated road and brazen effrontery of it's attorneys was un- l eaualled anywhere. MT. Brown asserted | one of his most vehement filings at his co1- leagues on the railroad committee, which 1 was that they preferred to serve monopoly rather than the interests of the people. Mir. ! Amber of the railroad committee defeated the majority report, and when he closed was l applauded. He said: I signed the majority ! report of the committee because, among oth ples to any road being built in this State that is not necessary, and I firmly believe that it is for the best interests of the State that some competent body should determine the common convenience and necessity for ! building a1ailroad as in the case of an or sary that the common convenience and necessity should first be deter | mined in the case of an ordinary highway, as our statutes now provide, how much more 1 necessary that this all important question should be determined before such au enter- prise which involves the expenditure of mill lions should be started upon, saying nothing about the rights of the people which are sac- rifcGd by the remorseIess exercise of the right of eminent domain by ruthless specu- l lators over the property of the people of this States
 They say that in the case of building a railroad the principle is different because the ! money spent is not the peoples money, but the money of the speculator, or dupe of the speculator. But let me answer that specula- tors do not construct railroads for philan- thropic purposes, and that just much money as is expended for railroads must be supported, sooner or later, by the people by rates and fares, which is largely if not wholly tax.
 am opposed, under the present state of affairs, to granting the Housatonic company any further power because believe that it's management is such that will Gf 1t has not already lead to it's financial ruin. Since the change in the management of that road, which took place in 1887, nearly $4 ,000, 900 have been added to the liabilities of the COWphuE, AHu uurluS LuaC IlLlS GQ6 AcCQal cost of construction has been increased by less than $400,0 What has become of this immense amount of money? Much of it has gone into the pockets of those directors who control this road, and own the majority of the stock, in the shape of cash, bonds and new stock. All of which, with due respect to those learned gentlemen who have given opinions otherwise, claim were illegally issued. To offset and cover up this remark able increase of the liabilities, the apparent assets of the company have been increased But howl All of these assets except four or five hundred thousand have been created by marking up the books and by revaluing the property of the company.
 The general law relating to the issue of bonds by railroad companies limits the amount Of bonds outstanding at any one time I to one-half the cost of the construction of l the road. The statute fixes the basis upon l one-half the cost of the construction of the l road because that is a sure and safe basis | and can be easily determined from the con- struction account. While the present value | of the road would Huctuate. thus forming a | most unstable basis upon which to limit | the issue of bonds.
 As is shown by your committees report 1 the amount of bonds outstanding for which | the company is liable are over $1, ,50O, 900 in l excess of the cost of construction of the | road, and taking the whole amount of the l property of the road, all together even as it | is marked up and revalued, the bonds out standing equal over half the total. 1
 Is such the management to be trusted with l increased franchisesl 1
 Is such the management that is likely to put the road on the honest basis of earning dividends, or is it the management of stock I and bond speculationf |
 I for one do not blieve it to be the policy l of the State to grant any further power to | such management. Nor do I think it is the 1 policy of the State to grant further power to | issue stock and thereby legalze that stock, which believe is illegally issued. 1
 There are other reasons why the managers ! of this road are not to be trusted. Your | committee had not far to go to find fraud and | cunning stamped upon the very petition of | the Housatonic company. At the very first ! hearing 1t was drawn out that underside this l seemingly simple petition was determina- tion to use these simple grants for other and | far greater purposes. They ask for power to | build branches when under that power they | intend to build main line. To trife in the | strongest sense of the word with the govern | ing power of this State. These petitioners l stand charged with endeavoring to ob- tain most valuable franchises under | false representation. And with that grant they would exercise " one of the most sacred functions of sovereignty, namely The right of eminent domain, ," and obtained by fraud! An insult to the intelli- gence of the general assembly of this State.
 I ask again if it is to such management and to such men that you will grant increased l powers, together with the right to invade our homes and to ruin franchises already granted.
 If the general law regarding branches can be construed by such management to mean 1 main lines, then I am of the firm belief that in order to protect the rights of the people in their property in this State against such ruthless exercise of the all sacrificing power of eminent domain; then the law should be ! changed at once in order thst the great prive. lege of eminent domain should be exercised only when it is determined to be necessary, upon this principle if for no others, that the laws are not for those who do right, but to protect such from those who would do wrong.
 The object of the Housatonic is to build parallel road from New Haven to New York. They say in order to accommodate the in- crease of business brought from their con- nection with the New England and destined