The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-06-13
LAWAS TO RAILROADS
Mr.. Henry A. Page, c. Aoe1-
deem. Gives:His Views.
cOMBATS JUDGE CLAIM
RAILROADS MORE 0iN1> ~
AGAINST THAN SHINING.
THEIR CHARGES MOI 100 hIa7
Mr.. Page CONTENDS mat Salaries ''-'
Are not 90 tlish and I hat RUE
For hickly Populated states
Does not Apply rtefs
Does not Apply riere

To the Editor: had hoped that some
ane not connected with any raiiroau'
sborefore not open TO the charge Oh sell
;sb natives. would make some comment
on Judge Clark's recent expression
touehing railroads. | do not believe that
all of the fair-minded men in North caro-
lima are dead, and | hope that Judge
Clark's views are not shared by any con-
siderable number of conservative pusl-
aess mon Men whose business have been
SQUARED by the rule of What IS the rlsht
thing TO do" cannot help seeing that this
"a not the text Judge Clarks sermons are
based on: but rather~''What have we the
right to do" the legal right. Now II 1t IS
always right to do what we have legai
right TO do, then the Judges point of
view is not only a legal ONE, but falr
one as we'll Is this true however! II
What the courts do is sure to be
right | am ready TO abandon my argu-
ment and withdraw rom the field. L am
not fool enough to argue with Judge
Clark about what we have right to do;
he IS a specialist in that field, but if the
anestion be w nat is the right thing to
do. then | tor any other honest MANI
am placed upon an equality with him.
II has been said that bank officers who
handle enormous quantities of money,
are apt to lose correct estimate or ITS
value. and become at best spendtnrlfts;
may we not agree with equal reason, that
a man whose business 1t rs TO decide,
What we have a right TO do Will so
ma gnify legal points, as to, at least III a
measure. lose sight of the fine moral dis
functions involved IN the question " hat
Is the right thing TO do:" If You have a
difference with your neighbor and wish
re take an unfair advantage of him, you
would propose as an arbitrator some
sharp attorney whose whereofs and
therefores and saids and aforesalds
would myst:fy and tangle, hoping out of
= multitude of technicalities, to carry
your point.
The attorneys knowledge of what you
have a right to do is full and complete. 1t
is his business to keep up with the latest
extension of the line that divides Our
rights from what is criminal. But if you
wanted the matter in dispute settled by
and and man, would you not rather
leave it in the hands of a business man,
whose view of the question would be
..What is the right thing to dog
Just here let me say that, in the opin-
ion of many of Judge Clark's friends, it
rs not delicate thing, nor right thing,
for him, or ony other judge, to thus pub
lcly express such radical views, bearing
so directly upon questions that will sure
BY come before him in his judicial ca
paeity. 1t is not to be wondered at that
Col. Andrews should fight to the last
ditch to retain his privilege of trial in
Federal courts, when the only non-partl-
san judge on our Supreme court bench
steadily cries that the railroads are eat
ing the State up, and insists so strenuous
" that their revenue should be reduced
to the last possible penny, and their tax
es increased in reverse ratio. The pre-
sumption that corporations will not re-
eeiye justice at his hands is strengthened
by the fact that he has formed and fire.
quently expressed these anti-rallroad
opinions. without having had proper OPP
porfunity to correctly estimate the cost
of operation, etc. He severely criticizes
eur Railroad Commission, because it does
not enforce his views. The Commission
has facts, figures, testimony, and it
would seem that it should be as well able
10 arrive at sound, reasonable conclusions
as can Judge Clark, without these helps.
Nobody in North Carolina believes that
the Commissioners lave been bought, or
can be bought, and it requires wide
sweep Of the imagination to even suppose
that they are prejudiced in favor of rail
roads; we know that they are fully in
formed of the many grievances against
railroads (if you have any doubt upon this
point. attend one or two of the sittings),
and in most instances they have the tes-
simony both Of the complainant and of
the railroad. They say, in the light of all
this information, that lower rates would
prove disastrous. Judge Clark, without
having had such opportunity to arrive at
just conclusion, says that it is not true,
that not only would the people of the
State be benefited, but the earnings Of
the railroads would be greater.
1t is undoubtedly true that, within rea-
sonable limits, lower rates will operate to
increase earnings. Then it must be large
~ matter OF opinion as to how low
rates must be, before decrease in reve-
nue. would result. Upon this point, we
have the testimony Of all the managers
of our railways that any reduction in
passenger rates from the present stand
ard will cause a shrinkage in gross earn
ings corresponding to the percentage OF
reduction, or nearly so. These men have
given their lives to the study of railroad
management; some Of them are men OF
wonderful minds and the highest execu
tive ability, whose business it is and has
been, TO plan for the largest possible rev
snue for their roads.
Judge Clark says: Cut rates and in
crease earnings" 1t is generally believed
that Mr.. ST. John and Col. Andrews have
long wanted to kick each other. They
should now eacn kick himself for stupid
ass, to have CROPPED all of these years il
arbitraries and divisions and connections
and missed this simple road to wealth
Reduce fares"
But Judge Clark says Michigan, o
New York or some other State enforce