The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-03-05
ANTr-RAu1RoAD LEGISLATION.
TComn1unicated.l


of legislation to regulate railways? In
your opinion is a commission either
necessary or feasible or will a railroad
without a commission operate equally
as we'll? Can you refer me to any
state which has solved these questions
successfully?''
The foregoing questions were pro-
pounded to the Railway Age by a
prominent monied man of this city
He also mailed a copy of the bill with
them which the editors of that journal
print in full AND then follow by say
ing:
1.-THE questions which our cores
pondent asks open up a very wide
field and could not be fully answered
except at great length. To reply as
briefly as possible we would say:
Firstly, as to the particular bill
which has been introduced and is
printed above. 1t is probably as bad
bill on the subject as could we'll be
drafted. 1t is unconstitutional in at
least two particulars and probably in
many more. The closing provision Of
section 5 as to the payment of the at
torney general etc, is unconstitu-
tional. The last clause of section is
unconstitutional assuming for the
state the right to control or regulate
interstate commerce, which is under
the jurisdiction of the federal govern
ment only. Section is so ungram-
NAUTICAL as ITO be practically meaning
less. Similar faults in construction
and grammar are to be found through
out the bill, conspicuouSly in sections
1 and 9. Moreover the entire docu-
ment is so loosely and inadequately
drawn and shows such complete ig
norance of what has been done or can
be done and so little idea of how to
arrive at the ends aimed at, that there
is scarcely any probability that any
| part of it would be upheld by the
courts. If it was passed and COM
mission appointed, the expenditures
incurred would probably be declared
unconstitutional, the appointments in
valid and all the acts of the commits
sion void. So much for this par
ticular act We take it, however, that
| there is no chance that the Utah legis-
lature would pass a law in such a
| form as this The question is whether
any law on these lines is required or
whether it would be a good thing for
the state. Therefore
Secondly. as to the general effect of
! the creation of such a commission.
! There is no doubt that the argument
| advanced, viz, that the passage of
| such a law will discourage investment
/ in railways in the state, is valid. Out
side investors will not put their money
into railway building in a state in the
condition of Utah to be subject to
such commission and such regula-
| ton as is here suggested. If Utah
needs any more railways the legisla-
ture had better put this bill entirely
aside. Five or teneyears hence will be
! time enough to take it up again. If
she has all the railways that she
needs and is content to tell outside
! investors that she wants no more of
their money (such a bill as this is
practically such an announcement
! then the Legislature will do no especial
harm ito the interests of the state by
passing the bill.
Lastly, on the general question of
the experience of the past in other
states with the regulation of railways.
A whole library could be written on
| the subject. We commend to our cor
respondents attention the remarks of
| Mr.. Blackstone, as published in the
last issue of The Railway Age, for
! information as to the results of the
commissions methods in Illinois.
There is a whole volume to be writ
ten on the experiences of either Min
nesota, Iowa, Texas, Nebraska, Wis
consin, or any one of half dozen
other western or southern states
| Briefly, it may be said that the state
! which has come nearest to salts
| factory solution of the question is
Massachusetts, and after that New
! York. But next to these or perhaps
| on a par with them are those sta ties
which have been content not to touch
! the subject at all There is no longer
any question of the right Of a state
! to regulate its railways. That has
| been settled for a quarter of a CEN
tuTy. Nor is there any more question
! as to the power of any state to do it.
1t is for Utah a question only Of ex-
pediency. Utah has at present about
! 1 400 miles of line, with an area more
| than twice as large as that of Ohio.
! She has about ! mile Of line to 60
square miles of territory. She ought
| to have 5000 or 10000 miles of road
within her borders and she will get
! them If she adopts a reasonable policy
The construction Of 5000 miles of new
! line will mean the expenditure of
about 5000, 900, 000 That much will be
brought in by outside capitalists and
! expended for labor and other things
| within the state. 1t will bring tens of
| thousands of men there to do the
! work. The employees necessary to
| operate those 5000 miles Of line will
| W eNbOoI o@JVOVy w with t1lSlT ldIIlll-
| lies, represent a population of about
100000. Quite apart from all the in
cidental industries which the railways
will create, there will be an addition
of 100000 to the permanent population
of the state to keep the railways rum
ming. The wages of the employees
will be about $9o,000o00 annually.
Moreover, those 5000 0OO, 600 once ex-
pended in the construction of the
roads will stay there"
The Railway Age is a recognized
authority on railways and railway law,
and its opinion when given carries
with it great weight. In this instance
it puts the case intelligentiy and
hews SO closely to the line of facts in
all things pertaining to Utah,
that its statements are practi-
cally unanswerable. While the
argument is made on the pro
posed Morrison bill-a bill that
was shelved upon the argument of the
different chambers of commerce and
shippers generally-yet it will apply
/ Ixr