The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-09-17

candidate for governor, and was de-
feated Attorney General Childs who made
that decision possible by the intense app Plea
ton and work he put upon the case, was
a candidate for promotion to the supreme
bench. and he was defeated. 1t is fair to
assume that his attitude upon this question
as we'll as upon the attempt to consolidate
the Great Northern and Northern Pacific
railroads, and the Anderson tax law, was
not satisfactory.
WHERE EUSTIS STANDS.
Mr. Eustis, who was nominated for gov
ernor, was one Of the incorporators and d.
rectors Of the Minneapolis, st. Paul sault
Ste Marie Railroad company, of which Mr.
Thomas Lowry for years was president,He and
Mr.. Lowry were also directors OF the North
western Guaranty Loan company. Mr.. Lowry
Is president of the Twin City Rapid Transit
company. The 500 road, as Is we'll known,
is controlled by the Canada Pacific railroad,
which for some months has been engaged in
fierce struggle with the interstate COM
merce commission upon the question of fixing
rates. 1t would be impossible to find a man
in the state of Minnesota whose associations.
business ideas and education are more d.
rectly opposed to the decision rendered by
the supreme court in the Stevenson case
than are those Of the Republican candidate
for governor.
The interests of Mr.. Eustis, as well as
those of his chief supporter, Thomas Lowry,
are opposed to the interests Of the people
Of this state. Can there be any doubt that,
in case Of his election, he will appoint
railroad and warehouse commission which
will act for the interests of himself and his
friends rather than of these of the whole
people? Can il be doubted that, IL the JUS
tees of the supreme court who rendered the
decision in the Stevenson case are defeated,
their successors will understand that the
people of the state of Minnesota do not ap
prove of any attempt to interfere with or
regulate the conduct of railroad corpora
tons?
EUSTIS' ATTITUDE NO CONJECTURE.
In the matter of adjusting the rights of rail-
road corporations in dealing with the public
the interests of all the railroads are Identical.
No matter how much railroads may quarrel
with each other, they will always combine
just as the Great Northern and the Northern
Pacific did in the STEVENSON case to prevent
the establishment of any principle which
makes against their interests and which can
be afterwards used as a precedent when the
question arises with reference to any other
road. No matter, therefore, how fierce the
competition may be between two railroads
it will always be found that the contest will
stop short of involving the aid of the state
to restrain any railroad from receiving I'M
just tolls from the public
1t is not necessary, however, to conjecture
what Mr. Eustis' attitude would be upon this
question, as he has already publicly expressed
himself and given his idea of the respective
rights of the public and corporations dealing
with the public. While he was mayor of Min
neapOls ne vetoed an ordnance passed by
the common council of that city regulating
the issuance Of transfers to passengers upon
the street railway. In his veto message he
used this language:
81 have faith to believe that whenever the
public are seriously Inconvenience, whether
in the location or method of issuing trans
fers, that the company will accede to the
necessary changes, especially If we ask as IA
VOrs things we may not demand as rights.
The railway company should be con-
suited on all these questions, and l believe
when their business interests are not made
to suffer, they will, they should, gladly
yield to any reasonable request on the part
of the tuhlc.'