New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-02-16
REGARD FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Commenting on the acquisition OF the Central
Ncv-Enzland Railroad by the New-fork. New
Haven and Hartford Railroad Company. The
Springfield Republican" raises point OF inter
est In this day Of complaint Of a popular dis
position 10 destroy corporate property rights
The Republican represents the acquisition as
the result Of a long war Of the New-HaveD CON-
pany on its rival and says;
No great corporation ever set cut 20 destroy
the property 81 a possible or actual competitor
with greater celebration than vas shown IN TINS
case. Perhaps Il has proved successful IN
money sense but what is 10 calm the troubled
corpo ration's scienCe-presuuing u 70 possess
such a thing7 What would be SAID by the New
Haven company were the PUBIC authority 70
6eal with Il IN similar contempt OK property
rights:
Just what the merits Of this particular strug-
gle which centred in Springfield were we do
not know. lut the question presented is one Of
general arUIlcation Corporation managers do
not often think Of that phase Of the subject
when they enter on campaigns TO destroy other
peoule's property. We have heard q great deal
In the last year about the Presidents attack on
property by beginning the Northern Securities
litigation. All the President did was TO esk the
courts 10 pass on the legality Of certain acts
done By corporation, which II legal were OF
course beyond interference. Everybody VIII
admit iu general that law should be enforced;
but some are so impressed with the sacredness
Of the right TO make money, law or no law,
that they denoUnce him for riding roughshod
over the corporations and ruthlessly shifting the
Industries OK bis country. Admitting that the
law was on his side, tIeir view is that legal.
rights should not measure tie privileges OF
corporste property. The fact that the courts
have legally reason for making war upon
IL -
n doing so.
That is an interesting theory. How DO our
corporation managers live up to it7 We know
each one Of them IS extremely sensitive about
the sacredncss Of the particular property he
manages, and deeply concerned for the widows
and orphans whose money IS invested IN his
stocks and whose incomes viii be cut or BY
any interference with bis operations, especially
by the government But how do they treat one
another's property? A few months ago a great
railroad and q great telegraph company were at
war. ana there was cutting Of poles on one
siGe and a pounding OF stock on the other,
which must have been disastrous to the security
holders Of the two companies. It was touch
ing exhibition OF concern for the private prop
er,v rights Of thousands, The gentlemen who
were ready 10 ride roughshod over the corpora
tons opposed TO them did not care for any
body clse's property or the industries OF the
country. II they unsettled the market and
paralyzed industry, or ruined thousands OF in
vestors. it was nothing 10 them. So long as
they kept within the letter OF the law, cut down
no poles they were en5oined from touching. ex-
erted no bear pressure they were punishable
for exertng. they thought they were fulfilling
every moral aud business obligation.
such wars are a commonplace Of business.
Nobody has less regard for rights Of property
not effectively protected by law than our great
corporations. When the railroads have had tie
power. they have not hesltsted by secret dis
eliminating rates utterly 10 destroy the property
OF some individuals and build up tie fortunes
OF others. With delibeuti0n they have set 10
work 20 destroy the property OF rivals, and
even 20 wipe out OF existence whole towns Cor
porations have frequently thought il their prIvi-
lege 10 tell persons what business alliances they
might make or might not make 10 whom they
might or might not sell property. Yet with
what indignation they contemplate the notion
that the government may say who may buy and
who may not buy railroads! They ought 10 be
about the last people In the world TO conpla In
Of Invasion OF freedom Of trade and contract
ard destruction Of private property rights. The
\ EXTREMIST proposals OF corporate regulation are
/ mid On their threats against private property
l AID industry compared with the ruthless suit