The morning call., 1894-07-01
H. E. HUNTINdroN,s LETTER.

Mr.. II. E. Huntington has presented
the Southern Pacific side of the railroad
tie-up. case. BE has made use of the best
arguments for his side which the situation
affords. But be certainly has not left the
other side without something to say. lie
may have obscured the issue to an ex-
tent, but there is still no difficulty in
keeping the main points of the contro-
versy in view. The argument Mr.. Hunting
ton most relies on is that if the Southern
Pacific yields to the strikers demands not
TO attach Pullman cars to the trains it will
thereby establish q precedent that will
embarrass future action. He imagines
similar but not parallel cases, which, if
they were real. would enable the Railway
Union to dictate rates of wages for the
principal industries in the country. This
is frayed and feeble line of argument.
When the cases Mr.. Huntington imagines
arise they will be discussed according to
the conditions presented. At present we
have to deal with the present demand of
the Railway Union. That demand is that
the Southern Pacific Company shall not
handle Pullman cars until the difficulties
between the union and the car company
are adjusted. The Southern Pacific Com
panY may continue their business other
wise without hindrauce from the union.
1t may carry freight, the mails and such
passengers as please to forego the luxury
of Pullman car. The Southern Pacific
can comply with every demand made by
the Railway Union and not cause any
disturbance Of general business. All the
passengers now grouped in way stations
throughout the interior might be taken to
their destinations. There is no need of
Pullman cars to carry fruit and other
kinds Of freight. The Pullman-car service
is not a necessary branch of rairoading,
though doubtless a profitable one.
But Mr.. Huntington assumes that the
performance Of the Southern Pacific con-
tract with the Pullman Car Company is
of greater importance than it's perform
ance of its contract with the Government
to carry the mails and with the people for
ordinary carriers service The Southern
Pacific had to choose between its special
contract with the Pullman Company and
its general contract with the public, and it
chose to cast its fortunes with the Pullman.
The franchise which the Southern Pacific
does business under is based on an
agreement to perform certain service for
the public. This agreement was limited
no right to make special contracts that
might interfere with the performance of
the work upon which it obtained its priy-
leges as Ctrlmon carrier. IF the South
ern Pacific had not been willing to agree.
to perform the duties of a common car
rier, people would have been found who
would. The assumption that transpor-
tation company holding public franchise
owes no other duty to the public than a
citizen owes who does business without
acquiring special privileges is at the base
OF pretty much all the Southern Pacife's
blupders. That company has frequently
claimed the right to conduct its business in
its own way, regardless of any Obligations
it has assumed toward the public.
Mr. Huntington now says that "the rail-
roads are now under contract with the
Pullman Car Company to move its cars
over their lines. The car company has
right to the enforcement of this con-
tract" If the Southern Pacific Company
held no franchise and consequently owed
no other service to the public than a man
who conducts dTy-g goods establishment,
it would have the right to choose between
customers when it could not serve both.
Bus the Southern Pacific has franchise,
and has undertaken to perform a service
upon which vast net Of industries de-
pend for existence. 1t is lamentable that
. under these conditions its managers have
so narrow sense of their legal and moral
obligations to the public as to choose to
serve the Pullman Car Company rather
than to serve the public.