The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-04-28
CONCEIVED IN SIN"

iiDit lnO.p
ton. but the interests of the people
must be safeguarded.
CONCEIVED IN SIN"
Mr.. Robert |. Gammell was opposed
10 the proposed measures, and Mr.. John
w. Vernon said that such legislation as
was here proposed was conceived in
sin and brought forth i'm iniquity.'
Lorin NJ. Cook. ESQ. said that never
had any reasonable request of the Con-
solidated road been refused in Rhode
Island, but in spite Of this the road had
shown not the slightest consideration
for the people OF Rhode Island In the
matter of freight and passenger rates
He did not believe that such sweeping
legislation should be granted.
Hon. Charles H.. German said that
neither of the corporations had inform-
cd the General Assembly what they
want, and IL is because they DO not
know yet what they want. IL was an
attempt to wrest the powers OF govern
ment from the proper authorities. Tie
corporate argument Is that the passage
of the acts will be convenience, but
In this small state the passage of such
legislation would be manifestly unsafe.
He held that the legislative power
should remain in the hands OF the Cen
eral Assembly, and not be transferred
To any one or more corporations. Mr..
damages the language OF the act should
he direct enough 10 cover not only d.
rect, but also Incidental, damages.
Richard II. comstock, Esq, spoke
against the passage OF the act intro
duced by the Consolidated road. and he
said the question was, shall the people
Of Rhode Island abrogate their' soye.-
egn rights and place them in the hands
OF corporation? He hoped that no
such legislation would be enacted, ana
he said he was just as much opposed TO
the Suburban company's petition as hs
was to the Consolidated petition.
CITY SOLICITOR PROTESTS.
City Solicitor C~lwell said that he
would make under instruction OF the
city council of the city OF Providence
protest directly against the bill pre-
sented by the New York, New Haven
and Hartford Railroad company.
The act which he was di-
rectly instructed TO oppose. he regarded
AZ an invasion OF the sacred rights OF
the state. He had not found anybody
except the alto neys OF the corporations
| who spoke in favor OF the acts. Large
property owners had spoken, but all are
opposed.
What strikes terror to the hearts of
the people is that the corporation does
not say what IL wants. and this au-
thorizes the assumption that IL Is ask
ing for something that ii ought not to
have The corporation is to be the sole
judge OF what 1t shall do, and, IL such
an act is passed, IL can do whatever
it peases. in spite of the will OF the
people. To delegate this power to "A
corporation is something unheard OF.
and IL should never be granted unless
Ii is clearly known where IL is going
and what is to be done under it, The
proposition is indeed most startling.
The New York, New Haven and Hart
ford Railroad company. said Mr.. Col
well has broken faith with the city OF
Providence and the state Of Rhode ISL
and in a most lagrant manner. He
then spoke of the litigation which has
been carried on and Is now pending in
relation 10 occupation of certain
streets. The difference between this
corporation and the Suburban is that
the people say: I'VE do not TRUST this
corporation: we may trust the Subur-
ban. No corporation should be given
rowing commission over this state
and the right to exercise it.
Mr.. Colwell closed his remarks by
saying that, II was no time TO grant
such powers to this corporation at
present a power which II might use
with telling effect in the litigation now
pending between the railroad and the
city.
Amasa NJ. Eaton, Esq, spoke against
the bills. and Attorney Buckland of the
Consolidated road. said that the cor
poration he represented had fully livcI
up 10 every agreement that n had made
with the city of Providence If. ne said.
his corpora tion was to be politically
prosecuted because IL believed in apply
ing TO the supreme court for the en-
forcement OF what IL believed TO be
its rights, then there was no Justice in
the state. He said that the occupation
nj as.I
been an expense, and not a revenue to
the company. and had only been done
as an accommodation ITO the merchants.
This did not, he said, apply to India
street
Mr.. Buckland again claimed that his
company had the right, when Il deemed
what IL considered its corporate inter-
ests to be in danger 10 apply TO the
courts. without being prosecuted for
SO doing.
MIR. SARLES OBJECTION.
Mr.. O.iP. sarle. OF Warwick. protest.
ed against the act in relation to the
suburban company. because he said
land was TO be condemned for the pur-
pose OF running its road 90 Rocky
Point, and he had reason to believe
that some OF his land was to be taken.
Chairman Blodgett stated that the
custodian OF the building desired to
close IL at this hour, but II any further
hearing was desired the committee
would endeavor to grant further oppor-
runity.
Senator Freeman Of the committee
asked IL the gentlemen interested were
willing to accept the provisions of the
New York law, which provides that
names and locations and causes shall
be filed with the court, and shall be
adjudicated upon.
Mr.. Angel saiu that his act was
framed only upon preceding acts bur
ne said N n was the desire TO depart
from the usual custom, he had no oh
lection that the question OF necessity
OF any particular location should be
passed upon by some person or persons
designated by the General Assembly.
provided that Il should not be n local
body. but some tribunal az far remov-
ed as possible from local prejudices.
James Tillinghast. Esq. said ne rec
ognised that a corporation like the
Suburbsn might consider the power