The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-12-16

Now. we do not hesitate TO pronounce
this proposition one for downIlsh'
berry. different In no respect rom ~
robbery Of the highwaymah. eAcep. 49,
the latter is decent enough 10 peiPe'l".e
his with 4 mask on, and at MS own per
sonat rtsk while Mr. Bryan is shhme-
loss enouch to propose his In the pres
.nce az ali the American people ana III
tho very halls that they have dedicated
40 tb., creation OF laws that Shall Sc
cn-e equal and exact justice to al.
7 do not know whether you are pecH-
niarily interested In railroads or not
hut II not. how can you be bhud TO the
fact that my amendment seeks t"e
"edual and exact justice lot al ""'N"
YOU claim 10 favor?
II Won are interested In railroads 1t Is
only natural that you should be biased
"a their fyvor. and would notice an m
Justice done TO them more readily than
Won would an injustice done by them 10
others. You say, There is not ran
road in the United States that can De
reproIuced. with its rolling stock, at
anything like what it cost but from
what follows you evidently meant ~
say what is true. that because OF cHedPel
stesl rails. because OF cheaper grading
due to improved machinery, because OF
cbeaper rolling stock etc, roads can De
they cos. when built originally. Now, II
is because Of this very fall in prices mat
I favored the amendment which seemed
so unreasonable to you that you saiu'
ION what plea, pray, save thdl OIL 'He
highwayman. can this dOss) be eXdcted or
them Uhe railroads. Your language Is
strong enough TO indicate depth OF con-
viction. ard such conviction ought 10 DE
defended by reason rather than by nara
Iqy n
omaha World Herald. OF which | am
editor. I defended the position criticised
so severely by you and invited any rail-
road manager to reply through the
columns Of the paper, but no one or the
5000 subscribers has sent In a reply
now extend an invitation 10 you to reply
within the limits Of a three column
article. II you had given TO your readers
even the brief argument presented by me
In the House of Representatives In sup
mort Of the amendment you would have
moderated your criticism. IL does seem
harsh. doesn't Il, 20 say that a railroad
Il hfch Maid $50 for steel rail should Doe
compelled 20 compete with road Wnich
only paid 81, and yet this harshnes>
uervades the commercial world. Every
business which Is not a monopoly must
base It's profits on the value or cost or
reproducing plant because some one
starts up new enterprise at the ne"
scale OF prices and competition brings
down the prices or the old enterprise. l.
may be cruel but It is the law OF c0mps-
tition and competition wears no mask,
neither does competition regard limo
cent purchasers" II a farmer buys a
farm for $1,000 gives q first mortgage
for s. 700 and a second mortgage for $500.
are not both he and the holder OF the
second mortgage innocent persons Ana
vet II cotton and other farm products go
down 10 such an extent that the farm
will only pay running expenses ana the
interest on the first mortgage. what trl-
bunal can protect the owner OF the farm
and the second mortgage from loss
II a man invests $1,000 iu business and
gives first mortgage for $500. and
Il second mortgage for $50. are not
both the second mortgage and the meT-
chant innocent persons But what court
OF equity viii save them from the effects
of falling prices when they reach point
when the stock will only satisfy the hrst
MORTGAGE? II 2 railroad was built thirty
wears ago between two points for $4,000
per mile, and has no competitor II can
continue 10 collect profits on original
cost. but suppose a new road Is built by
the side Of IL for $500 per mile, now
will the old road pay profit on original
cost? You may say by pooling under the
new pooling bin, but the only answer is
.bv monopoly" II the principle Of mo
nopoly could be applied to all Industries
then each could prey upon all others ana
even up for losses, but when some can
combine and others can not, those which
can not must suffer continually. Now
the courts have held that legislatures nave
a right 10 regulate railroad rates. but the
regulation must be liberal enough 10 all
low "a reasonable profit TO the railroad
conlpanies. 4 reasonable profit on what
If Won say on original cost as you IN
innate. / ask, for how long, You men
ton the relative cost OF steer fdiIS' III
other items of cost had fallen IN the
same proportion some roads could now be
buUr for less than 70 per cent. OF orlSI-
r.l cast. For how many centuries do you
mink they should be allowed 20 collect
,rodts on five times the cost of reproduc-
tfou before II would cease 10 be nlhilsuc
10 suggest a reduction? II you say that
rates should be based on stocks ana
bonds held by innocent purchasers let
me reply that the Pacific railroads
were bonded and stocked for ABOUT
three times what they then cost ana 50
conservative statesman as Mr.. Paul
son. now Governor Of Pennsylvania, some
six years ago recommended a foreclosure
Of the Governments liens in order mat
the road might be capitalized at IT'S ac-
tuaI value You seem convinced thdt
the innocent purchaser should be protec-
I'd and say:
IF the law seeks exemption from Wa
tered stock. IL must take real precautions
against the issue of it. by being energetic
10 prevent 1t and by Furnishing those VINO
nut II out. IL must not come forward
with a plea Of the baby act ana seek
10 make innocent men the victims Of It's
own neglect and remissness.
What will YOU do when there are two
innocent parties? You must then decide
which has the most equitable claim TO
protection. The person who buys Wdtefed
stock does so voluntarily, and before BUY
ing he can discover that the stock IS
not based on real cost. II The stock IS
based on a high cost Of production ana
cost falls. why should the investor IN
stocks be protected from the nastortane5
which comes to other investors Mr.. Pat
tison i'm the report referred TO says
Would II not be an abuse OF tts power
for Congress TO give more consideration
to stockholders who are legatees or a
gigantic fraud rather than 10 the people
who are forced TO ship over the road, ana
who have been taxed for eighteen years
10 sustain that corporation? | believe
that Mr.. PattisOn announced the correct
doctrine The law does not protect the
Innocent purchaser Of a note from loss
because OF the Insolvency Of the maker,
neither should the government protect
the innocent holder Of railroad stocks ana
bonds from loss oCcasioned By fall IN
the value OF the investment II Is cruel
and unjIstihable Partially for the gov
eminent 10 pro.ect railroad interests