The Farmington times. [volume] (Farmington, Mo.) 1874-1902, 1899-06-29
dIll no, promptly aud rmphaticaliy rrs

dhi not promptly aud emphaiicHiiy act
the stamp Of my disappro,Rl upon any
measure that conaicicd with thrSr
principles aud doctrinr-, and this
would have been the fate of this bin
u | had found il tainted or tinetured
with the slightest ,irge orTcscmblance
a. trust OF monopoly.
But the powers conferred by this
bill are no greater than those now pos.
srssrd under our statutes by steam
railroud companies tscc 2567. u. s.,
lss9), aud hy telegraph and telephone
companies lscc 252g. u. s., 1851.
These provisions have been ON our
statute books more than twenty years,
and no oHs has IN all that time suE-
pcstcd that they made trusts or mo-
uopulies even possible, aud our eNpc-
ricucr has not shown any operations
under these provisions which mitigat-
cd against the interests II the people
ur the welfare Of the state. They have
undergone scrutiny hy two rcviainns
ut our laws made by drmucratic lrgis.
iutuT,--, "'t'; - ; j'';:,; ;=s:'s-.s :::--y
mrri tlc requirements Of the demo
cratic creed
4 trust or pool or monopoly, in
it, very uaturr and "bi-Tt, makes IL
pnssihiy iu iucrrus, lie pTicr ihr Ff0-
pie inevitably must Uay for the COM
modify service covered by the trust,
i'.-,.! - :s."#ai.a!;. lh:s h:l! .:,~- mol
mll within this definition. for the con-
sulidatrd slrcrt railroads can not
charge the public any more than they
eau now ar,crully charge under exist
ing conditions. while on the contrary
% secures system ~ Transfers which
the people de- not nov enjoy and could
never mcguire ur enforce ~ long a. the
lines are owned und operated =rpar-
utrly. 4 system uf irausirrr II Of small
benefit iu those who own their own
vehicles ar who have fNcd places ~
residence aud of business, but IL is uf
iucalrul1blr benefit 10 the workman,
the mechanic, the -tuucmnsun, the
hrickluyrr, or the artisan whose rcsi-
dcurr b. uNrd. hut who must move
from one lur8Iiiy lu auuthrr as be- can
find work tn do Thi. class ~ our pro.
| Iflf lH fNlf. llflf"' Nf'l h'NI wv IHF''AA.'t
paid and ihc least ahlr tu protect IT,
sfIf of ANY budy ni OUR fellow citizrns,
aud the bcurdt this Till rpnfrrr upon
them, strongly apprals IN favor of thr
bin, and was % potent influence upon
my action iu approving II.
Nciih,r does this bill rrrni" n mo-
uapuly for under the law- q rival
street railroad eau h. authorized to We
constructed uud operated NJ amy time,
aud su guarded b. she law that o new
and rival Street railroad ran hc given
| the right tu run over aud usv the
/ tracks in whole ur Zoe part. uf amy sN-
/ iytiur railroad ur of au, created or or
gauilrd uudrr this hill. and the
! amount the new company must pny
/ the old company must br settled hy
arbitration tptwrru them. subject to
review lay the courts. \ monopoly.
thrrcforc. under these provisions Of the
law Is M impossibliiy
think the provisions ~ the bill
have been misappr'hendsd by many.
II seems TO me that II does not In any
way violate ihr principles upon which
| the antitrust laws drr based. ! no-
ticcd IN the papers few days ago an
abstract of recent stntutcE 1T the
| state uf TrVn- upon the suhjcri ot
trusts" II H. said that this l. the
most drastic legislation that hHs ever
/ been enacted upon the subject. Yet
everything PERMITTED under the street
railway bill might be- done, and not
q single section uf the Texas anti
! trust laws would b~ violated. IN fact,
Gov. Saycr~. who signed this hill, the
papers say, M the same time, approx
| ed an act authorizing certain steam
railways 10 purchase. and consolidate
| with other lines nf railway.
Again. II has been argued that n one
| street railway company h permitted
/ 80 acquire other lines danFrruuv lO-
liiicaI power may bc obtained IN this
wuy. on account of the large number
of employee controlled by enc corpo-
ration. Whnt difference would there be
| In this behalf, whether one man. net.
ing through srpnrtc corporate organi-
/ la,iuns, managed or controlled four of
| five roads. or that the same man
should do the same thing under one
corpurute organization?
Upon a critical examination of the
whole bill and an analysis of the OBJ
jcctiuns TO II. have concluded that
there is no trust or pool or monopoly
created or made possible by II. and
that as II received the sanction Of NO
large n portion of the members of the
general assembly, ~ II seems to meet
the almost unanimous approval OF the
people Of the localities rrpccially NJ.
lrctcd hy it, us II does not INCREASE
the cost of service 10 the people, but
sccurcs benefits not now enjoyed or
possible Of attainment. and ~ II does
not violate any provision ~ the or
canir law or conflic, with democratic
prccedents or principles, OF. with tie
best interests of the people, have at
fixed to II my approval. Respectfully
LON Z. STEPHENS, Governor.