New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-02-13
IN DEFIANCE OF THE LAW.
4. ]. CAseATT,S OPINION OF THE COAL COM
EINATlON.
UF THINKS GOVERNOR PATTISON WILL TAKE
STEPS TO PREVENT ITS BEING CARRIED OUT
~ REPLY TO Ills SrATEMENIS pi

\ REPLY TO Ills STATEMENTS BY
COUNSEL OF THE READING.
PHILADELPHIA. Feb ia reporter of Inc
Evening TELEGRAPH who called at the oilce OF
the PENNSYLVANIA Railroad this morning ana 'rieu
70 ascertain what the managers OF that company
lad TO say about Readings great comp, iouhu
the officers not disposed TO discuss the SUBJECT a'
nresent He aftcrwnrd called on \. j. Cas5att.
one Of the directors of the company. who was
willing 10 express his individual views
well. if you want my candid opinion Mr.
Cassatt said Il think it the most audaclouS an"
most impudcnt defiance of the law ana 'he 'o"-
stituton of the State that has ever oc'n az
| tomptcd in Pcnnsylvania. II is not possible 'liaU
| ihc pcople who have made this SlSah.lc co''-
blnation can have forgotten the result OF the il%a-
tion growing ont of the proposed purchase by the
| PENNSYLVANIA Railroad Company of the Sou'n
Penn road and the Beach Creek road some years
aao In this case the Bedford and Brldgeporo
| Railroad. n corporation controlled by the fehh
| syiyania. was used the medium ior the pui
chase hut as soon as ihe intention DecaHe kno" "
the Attorney General of the State, under the dlIVo
| ,ion of the Governor, intcrposed and applIeu ~
tine courts for an Injunction restraining thc I"'-
| ford and Bridgeport and the PennSylNaha lroip
! consummating the purchase. setting up una, pr
vsio, of The Constitution Of the State which pro-
|
chosipp. or in any way acquiring the contr'i oil
. c,mretino line 4 lot of litigation cnsucd, with
thc resnlt That the State Won at every point ana
tho ;cdford and Bridgeport and the Pennsylvania
| ,,or, enioincd from directly or indirectly or Ill
ana. uoy carving ouo the intended purchase OF
control. -, ,.a. ,bc
The courts went 80 far as to hold 'hat '".
Northcrn Central Railroad Company co"i" "o'
leasc ar control the Beech Creek road. ai'hous"
,Lat road was not in any WAY competing "'
with thc Northern Central, but woulu h"Nc "''''
| , fccdcr 10 il: and this NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. 'hc i"''
49,. ,ho ponpsylyania was shown not to have
controlling interest in the Nor'h''"
ao,,,,r,. o,yninc ONLY about 80 per cent oi "c
.nI. Tho court,. however. held that was a
practical control. and that while the lHech 're'N
'., ma, a connecting line with the Northern
Central if was with the PENNSYLVANIA Railroad
o,1 that therefore the Northern Central must ho'
| l,., or control it, The fact IS the supreme 'o"'o
coulI not possibly have put broader or Moic
.,..,;no construction upon the consttu'l"h'i
provision. .rho
- Xoy what do We see here, according TO Inc
~, aooo,,,t of the transaction? Why, first,
,L,t tine Ichieh Valley. company that compe''S
~ a hundred different points and III th'uSr"u
different WAYS with the Reading. Is lcaSel 10 .'''Y
comnanv: second. that the Central hallioau VI
\rw-Jersrv whose lines run plrHlel WIN un" III
;h, of tho Ichirh Valley from Philpsburg To
Wilkcsharrr il leased I" "A little New-'clscy cor
nor,tion ,rea,cd by the Reading Railroad Com
nopv and now owned and controlled by that com
aony miles, the control has been constructlveY
nartcd with for the purpose of giving some color
Of legality 10 tho lease.
With this plain statement OF the case can
any more faylnnt violation of the law OF uie
st,te be conceived? Here is an attempt 10 create
q monopoly Of almost the entire anthracite con-
outpur Of the State. and the cntir" OUTPUT III
fact cNccpting the small rart VIII III Is coitlolc'
br the PENNSYLVANIA Rallroad lhc hl12hI''"c
or thi, enormous combination viii re hh.'cIs'pod
,t., | ,cu Won that the anthracite coal produc-
,io, ououn,s to about 40.oO0,O0o tons per annum
Representing a money value AT th' i'diN''' VI
over SI5O00O,0Ou annually.
IF is a,,oni-hne that the press and the pupIr
h.vc locLrd upon the formation of tins el@'htlc
m,,opolv with apparent Indifference ana IN many
.,.cs with approval Why, | see by this morning y
,,,ors Tint Mr. Mcleod. the president ot Inc
pe,dirg Railroad Company, received c"nsr1' III
,,ry letter. from various sources, anu among
othcr, from the Philadelphia Produce EAchang'
and the Comwercal Exchange
DO | think that any steps viii he taken 10
pcycnt the deal from being carried out
Yes. ! most certainly d".
"Will the Pennsylvania kallIoad company "'N'
any legal proceedings
II d.u't know ANYTHING about that: bat do
NOT tbiul, it will be necessary for any corporation
Or individual 10 take any action, either
who Go you think Will
"Whv the Executive of the State. of course
IT, happens fortunately that the Governor oi tl'
State is the same Governor who 80 promptly TOOK
,ction ar;,iu.t the Pcnn.yvan Railroad in the
case referred to. lie did not wait then for any
indvlull or corporation - take the lnliatlV'' u
acted on hi> own notion and he acted a' "N'''
| Governor TattiSOn has an cnNlablc lcpn'o'loh
as an able honest and consistent pupHc olHcer'
who has never yet failed in doing his dnty' am
feel Perfectly confident he won't fail to do II
in this case
REPLY TO MR. CAssATTs STATEMENTS.
John G. Johnson. counsel for the Reading Kali
road Company, in an interview TINS cN''lihs ~
reply To 4. j. Cassatts statements, says '"S,"' !
seems To have learned the law upon the SUBJECT
of what parallel and competing lines may 90
through the lesson taught his company III the TWO
case, which hc cites. There is about as m"c'
rarallclism between these claS ana inc
present one there is between u" A"h'eH
Valley Railroad and the Philadelphia and
7 .-.o,iiug Pailr,ad Quotations of preccdcnt'
which do not apply are the devices OF lawyers OF
even longer practice than Mr. CasSatt HIS Two
eases which he says are in point, are those OF me
l,ccch Creek and of the South Penn. In the hrS'
cosr the Beech Creek was being built into the
/ Clarified coal region For the purpose OF com
I peting with lines belonging 10 his company, IN
t carrying biuminous coal from the Clearhcld
I coal regions TO the market iiIs company 81"
4 that its monopoly Of the transportation when hao
p greatly profted il and all connected WIN IL wa
d in danger. The Dauphin County Court found I'll II
for the purposc chiefly of destroying or disabling
e ,he serions comprtiton between its lines and th'
i p.ccb Crcel, road" his company had agreed e