The record-union., 1896-08-16


the railroad.
the Interior is freqently quoted as being
against refunding. He is also on rec
ord as against Government ownership.
Before our Pacific Railroad Com
mittee he said: Il think the
last thing for the Government
to do would be to own a railroad.
/ think they had better give away their
interest. l am utterly opposed to that"
Secretary Smith ought to be good au-
thority for these anti-funding people.
Congressman Mcguire shows that 1t is
worse than folly to talk of Government
ownership of railroads, for in his speech
at the Metropolitan Temple, June 70,
1896 he said: There is in Congress an
overwhelming opposition to Govern
ment ownership and operation of rail-
roads" What folly, then, for anyone to
tell the people that we must foreclose
the lien and let the United States run
the railroads.
There would not be to exceed twenty
votes in Congress in favor of Govern
ment ownership of the railroads.
The Eastern people do not believe in
it. They say it might help California,
but it would hurt them.
We of California if united carry but
little weight in the councils of the ma
ton, and on this question we carry
none.
The American people east of the
Rocky Mountains control the business
affairs of the United States, and they are
solid against Government ownership of
railroads. They are not willing to buy
and run Pacific railroad at the ex-
pense of the whole nation, simply to
please or benefit California. Hence,
even if we all worked harmoniously for
it we could not secure it,
The purchase of these roads will lead
to the purchase of others, for every rail-
road company unable to pay it's debts
(and none of them can if pressed) will
demand that it be purchased as an act
of equality, and soon our reverend
Uncle Sam will have his hands so full
with running railroads that he cannot
attend to the affairs of the nation.
1t does not appear to me good policy
to experiment with Government owner
ship of railroads; nor do / believe that
the American people indorse the prop
oSitiOn. From the statements of Secre-
tary Smith and Congressman Mcguire
you can see that the idea of Government
ownership must be dismissed in cOnsid-
ering how to settle this question.
Shall the United States foreclose its
lien and settle it's equity of redemption
to the highest bidder and forever close
the account with these companies?
This would be the easiest and quickest
way out of the difficulty. 1t would end
the matter in less than a year.
But at what loss.
Who could bid at such a sale? Mani
testify only three parties:
First, the Government.
Second syndicate of rich men own
ing other railroads and anxious to ex-
tend their system.
Third, the present owners Of these
railroads.
Considering these proposed purchases
in order we find:
First, it is impracticable for the Gov
ernment to bid, because, as we have
seen, the United States does not want
to buy or run railroads.
Second, it would be very bad for the
nation If any organization of capital
should be able to buy and control line
of railroad from ocean to ocean.
The power of corporations is already
too great in the United States. Such an
aggregation of wealth as would be rep
resented by such company would
dominate the business, the politics and
the policy of the nation It would be a
constant menace to the rights and lib
critics of the people.
The form of it's manager would cast a
shadow over the White House itself
while his veto over legislation would be
more absolute than that exercised by
the President, because it would be inter
posed before, during and after action by
Congress.
Third, the present owners would have
Eo incentive to bid any large amount
because they would naturally desire tC
pay as small sum as possible in order
to obtain their roads freed from large
debt. l do not think that S5,00000(
could be obtained by such sale for botI
roads. If the owners of the Centra
Pacific, if c. P. Huntington were the
bad man his detractors would have us
believe he would refuse to dc
anything, to offer anything, tC
promise any payment or arrange OIL
urge any settlement of the railroad deb1
to the United States. He would stand
upon his contract, upon the law. He
would say, "Foreclose your second
mortgage. Sell your equity of redemp-
ton. I will buy it in at a small price
and thus wipe out the $75,O00,000 due
the Government by an expenditure al
nj CT nf ho
cent. thereof
But he does not say so. On the con.
trary, with an honest pride in his life
he says that he, himself and his com
rany, have always paid hundred
cents on the dollar, and he always wants
to. Hence he is willing to assume the
burden of the funding bill for his com
pany. Put the case to any attorney fol
a bank or individual, truthfully epitom
| lied as follows, viz:
'I have a second mortgage on prop
erty covered to nearly if not quite
| it's full value by first mort
gage My debtor cannot pay
either the first or second mort
gage. The first mortgage is due and its
holder threatens foreclosure. His prop.
erty is only valuable for, and can only
pay it's debts from it's earnings. / dc
not want to go into the business carried
on by my debtor. His property is no.
complete, but is dependent upon othel
properties for it's successful use. I an
bankrupt myself, and am only carrying
on my trade because of the credit
have My debtor has faith in his prop
erty, and believes he can pay dollar fol
dollar if given time. He offers to pay
some cash down, and a regular amoun
of principal and interest each year, an(
to give additional security. If I will
| give him time the first mortgage hold