Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-03-02
.POWDERLY'S REPLY
To the Citation of Attorney General
Hensel Lays Down the Law.
NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO OFFER,
But He Quotes Precedent Quite Apropos to
the Reading Deal.
WHY OFFICIAL ACTION Is NEEDED

WHY OFFICIAL ACTION Is NEEDED
| SCRANTON, PA, March General
Master Workman Powderly's answer to
| Attorney General Hensel's letter, notify.
ing him to be present March 8 at the hear
ing to be given the Reading deal, was
mailed last evening and in full reads as
| follows:
SCRANTON, Pa. Feb. %.
| To Hon. W. U. Hensel. Attorney General Com
monwealth Of Pennsylvania:
DEAR S1R-I have before me your letter OF
February %, in which you say that you have
| fixed Thursday, March 8. as the time when,
and the Chamber Of the Supreme Court. at
Harrisburg as the place where, you will
hear the complaint have already made or
any further matter bearing on the subject
which may desire to present. either in per-
son or by counsel.
While it will afford me the greatest pleas
ure to cooperate with you in securing such
evidence as will prove that the Constitution
of the Commonwealth has been violated in
the formation of the combination by which
the Philadelphia and Reading Company
gains control of the Central Railroad Of
New Jersey and the Lehigh Valley Railroad
Company. I cannot, from any actual knowl-
edge of the facts IN the case. make affidavit
to the complaint have already made, or do
anything in addition thereto. As stated in
my letter to the Governor, I knew of no
authorized form of making complaints.
Took the Governor at His Word.
was prompted to the act by q reported
interview with the Governor, in which he
was quoted as follows: "I have heard no COM
plant and have no knowledge of the exist
ence of such a combination, but will enter
tain any respectful complaint OF the abuse
or misuse of corporate franchises" etc. On
reading that interview I determined that
the Governor would soon have cause for &C
t1on, SO that he could proceed against the
parties who have formed the combination.
l, therefore, made respectful complaint"
believing that, having called the attention
ended there.
1t was a matter of no little surprise to me
to find. from q perusal Of your letter, that
would be required to proceed to Harrisburg
to repeat the complaint I had already
made" II my memory serves me Alright.
there were no complaints made to either the
Executive or the legal authorities of this
State in 1886, when Governor Pattison took
congnizance of the existence of combina-
tion to restrict the coal output of the an
thracite region. In his reference of the
matter to the Attorney General, he said:
"My attention has been directed to the fact
within the past fortnight that certain oor-
porations chartered by the Commonwealth
OF Pennsylvania, acting in concert. have
ordered two advances in the price of anthra-
cite COAL" etc.
1t was my aim to direct the attention of
the Governor to the fact that q combination
was being formed which would have
absolute control of the coal output, and
which could, without let or hindrance, ad-
vance and double the price of coal.
Quoting Pattison on Previous Case.
Closing his presentment to the Attorney
General, the Governor said: "These facts,
which have been reported to me and authen-
ticated, deem Of sufficient Importance to
refer to you for your onsideration and for
such action as the circumstances may war
rant" To my mind it was quite clear that
the facts in the case now under considers
tion were measurably authenticated on the
day I entered my complaint and I
furthermore felt that if the facts
in the former case were OF sufficient
importance to warrant the Governor
in presenting them to the Attorney General
of the Commonwealth, the statements with
which every paper in the land bristled for
several days before took steps in the mat
ter were of even greater Importance, since
they comprehended wider field of opera
hons: massing OF greater aggregation of
capital. and, as natural sequences greater
opportunities to advance the price of coal.
l am, in common with the vast majority
Of the citizens of this State, poweriess to
produce such evidence as will prove viola
tion of the fundamental law of the Common
wealth, unless the proper authority shall
institute judicial proceedings and compel an
obedience to the laws Of the State, am not
bound under penalty Of any kind to go to
mony. The fact that Mr.. Cassatt has refused
to appear would indicate that others may do
the same.
A Notification Not sufncient,
In your letter to me you say you have noti-
fed the Presidents OF tho Lehigh Valley
Railroad Company, the Central Railroad of
New Jersey and the Philadelphia and Read
ing Railroad Company, OF this appointment,
etc. You will pardon me for presuming to
say to you that q mero notification to do q
thing will not cause guilty person to do it,
and if there is vested in the authorities of this
Commonwealth no stronger or greater power
than that which is comprehended in a mere
notification, then the investigation of next
Thursday will not De prolific of good to the
people of the Commonwealth.
say this in all seriousness and earnest
ness, for I entered a complaint in that spirit,
and had reason to hope that it would enable
the Governor to see his way clear to take
the initial step against combination that,
to laymen like myself, at least, is in viola
tion, not only of the spirit, but of the exact
letter of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
certain that this combination exists.
We're to ask the parties to the combina-
tion to allow me the privilege of examining
contracts, leates, papers, ETC., it is probable
that they would not grant my requests.
without these or the evidence OF witnesses
could not give you more than ou have al
ready learned from the daily papers.
Private litigation is totally inadequate to
protect the Commonwealth against wrong.
In this case it is not the individual, or even
the limited number of individuals, who will
suffer, but tho people and the good name Of
the Commonwealth.
Holding to the Pennsy Precedent.
Iexpected and had a reasonable right to
expect that. as in the case OF the attempted
purchase of the South Pennsylvania Rail-
road by the Pennsylvania Railroad, the Gov
ernor would protect the interests of the
and compel obedience to
the Constitution. am not prepared to be-
lieve that there is one law for the Pennsyl-
vania and another for the Philadelphia and
Reading In this view of the case hope
you will agree with me.
When writing to the Governor, had in
mind more than the present combination;
and when said that Article IT, in every Sec
tion and clause, is being violated and set
aside by the action Of the philadelphia and