The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-04-03
STEAM VS. ELECTRIC ROADS,
VIGOROUS SPEECH BY VICE PRESI-
 DENT HILL,

The Claims of the Consolidated Road
 Paralleling of Steam Railways-Loss in
 Local Passenger Traffic--Mr. HRll's Reply
 to Judge Gager-New Haven Charter
 Hearing Again--Remarlxs by Messrs.
 GOOdhart, J. ID. Dewell, Ex-Mayor Sar-
 gent, Henry c. White and Others-State
 Board of Charities-An Exhibit of Trout.
 Hartford, April 2-There was an in-
 teresting hearing before the committee
 on railroads this evening. Several days
 ago Vice President John M. Hall of
 the Consolidated road delivered an able
 speech before the committee, in which
 he gave the steam roads case concern
 ing the paralleling by the electric roads.
 He showed how this paralleling was
 already taking away the local busi-
 ness of the steam roads and how it
 would injure the business even greater
 when the proposed new electric lines
 were established.
 Week before lastJudge Gager of Der
 by, representing the electric roads, re-
 piled for them in a long speech. This
 evening Judge Hall replied to Judge
 Gager's argument. It was an able ef-
 fort and was listened to with attentive
 interest. The speech Is as follows;
 MT. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee-Since had the honor to ad-
 dress you two weeks ago, my able and
 eloquent friends, Messrs. Gager and
 Terry, who seem to have taken the contract to secure favorable legislation in the general assembly for all the various promoters of the schemes now pending before this committee to eX-
 tend and parallel existing steam rail- roads wherever they may see fit, with out the slightest regard to the question of public necessity, or the chartered rights of steam railroads. have made their arguments. So far as I am con- cerned, should be entirely willing to rest the case of the large interest which I, in part, represent here, were it not for certain misleading, and, it seems to me, unjust and unwarranted statements of our position which appear in the so- called answer of my brother Gager which he has industriously circulated, embellished with various typographical extravangances, calculated to delude the unwary into a belief that the men of straw, he has tngeniously constructed from his fertile imagination and then knocked out with sledge-hammer blows, were real men. This is a very old trick of the orator, and my friend Gager has employed it for all it is worth in his reply to the claims of the steam railroads upon the questions at issue heres
 You know, gentlemen, and so does everyone else that heard our claims, that the steam roads disc1aimed all hostility to the electric roads as such, that no claim was made, that street railway construction must be subordi- mated to the demands of the steam roads, especially the Consolidated road nor, that there shall be no more street railways whose operation may diminish the earnings of the Consolidated road Nothing in the nature of these claims, which are set forth in bold type in MT. Gager'S answer was suggested by anyone who spoke for the interests of the steam roads. On the other hand, street railways, within the legitimate and proper sphere of a street railway as universally understood, were ap- proved and commended and their pub lie necessity frankly admitted. What we did undertake to impress upon this committee was the fact that an cleo tric road, projected to run from town to town and to parallel the existing sta tions of a steam railroad within such towns, was not a street railway, within the ordinary meaning of the term, but was a parallel road, possessing, by the free use of the public highways, the means of offering an unfair competition to steam railways that have expended vast sums of money for their roadbed and rights of way, and are obliged to support costly stations, appointments and employees of various kinds, and are subject to many other expenses, from which electric railroads are wholly ex- empt. We made the claim that such a as this should not be al- owed, because it was an interference by the legislature with the rights and granted to the steam roads In their charters, under which our citi- zens had been induced to invest their l capital in the faith that the state would | protect 1t against unjust competition.
 Hitherto Connecticut has repeatedly recognized the. justice of this claim by l to grant parallels to existing | steam railways. The same principal is | recognized by the refusal of the legisla- | .ure to grant a second gas, water or | electric light company in a city where | me already exists that is fairly serving he public at a reasonable price. It is l he guarantee of protection the state | ,ffers capital to induce it's owners to in- rest in all enterprises of a quasi public character. It is the very principle for which our friends themselves have been before you where one elec- rio road has attempted to parallel or ccupy the territory already secured by mother. In several states general tatutes exist against the paralleIing of lectric roads by other roads of the anne character. I refer my friends to he session laws of New Jersey, where everal of the principal owners of the electric roads reside, for 8S6, D. GA, for a fair sample of these avs against parallelism.
 'If it is right that an electric road which is fairly serving the public in a own or city, should be protected gainst parallelism, which I admit, hen 1t Is equally fair and right that he steam roads, under the same condi-