Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1905-07-13
CONTROL
How Railroad and Industrial
Corporations Differ.
THE WHOLE MATTER MADE CLEAR
Railways Exist Primarily For the
heheht OF the People, the Trusts
For the Stockholders-One Monopo-
%Aisttc, the Other Engaged In Com.
petttfve Business,

AS AOlUefS-One MOnnUn.
~listic, the Other Engaged In Com.
petitive Business,
III railroad magnates and their off,
clals, attorneys and agents are irving
to excite the trust magnates to iojn
with them In their fight against gov-
eminent control, claiming that the
trusts, also being corporations, will be
subject to having the price at which
they can sell their products regulated
by law, as it is now sought to control
railroad rates. 1t is we'll to keep strict
ly in mind the difference between the
railroad monopoly and other monopo-
lies. The railroads are granted by the
state unusual public powers, such as
the right of eminent domain, and &C.
cordingly for the protection of the peo-
pie are subject to regulation by the
state. The industrial corporations
called trusts will also be controlled,
but in another way, which is partly
provided for in the Sherman antitrust
law, which Furnishes by fine and i'm
prisonment for combinations in re-
straint Of trade.
We do not have to go outside of the
ranks Of railroad men themselves to
find clear recognition of the principle
which underlies the whole matter Of
state control of railroads. Thus the
late William II. Vanderbilt Of the New
York Central road and Mr.. Jewett,
then president Of the Erie road, adj
dressed a letter to the so called Hep
burn legislative committee back in the
late seventies, in which the following
propositions are laid down as to be
conceded:
hat 1t is the primary duty of the state
to furnish highways, whether they be
the road, the canal, the turnpike or the
railroad, the state alone having the right
Of eminent domain"
Tha for prudential and other reasons
the state Of New York preferred to en-
gage the services and capital Of her citi-
zens to do what was her duty to do,
granting them certain powers under GER
tain limitations and restrictions.
The state places such citizens in her
place to perform her duties and for this
purpose clothes them with the imperial
right of eminent domain"
The ordinary corporation is organized
for the special pecuniary profit Of its
shareholders, the profit Of the public be-
ing secondary. The railway corporation
is organized primarily for the benefit of
the people Of the state, and the %pecuniary
consideration is secondary.
This statement, 1t seems to us, should
leave nothing further to be said re-
garding the broad and radical differ
ence or distinction existing between
the ordinary corporation engaged in
competitive business and the railroad
which is monopolistic in the very ma
ture of the case.
And now as to the extension Of pub
lie control of railroads to include their
charges to the public. If we admit
the soundness Of the above Vanderbilt
and Jewett positions. as it would seem
must necessarily be done, then it fol-
lows that government control of rates
is exactly as defensible and called for
as any other government restriction
upon railroad corporations, for the
railroad corporation, according to this
line Of reasoning, is the agent of the
state, performing a state or public
function, but the state or it's govern
ment is the agent Of the people, sub
ject to the control of the people and
held responsible to the people in see
ing that principles of justice and rea-
sonableness are applied and enforced.
1t follows evidently that the railroads
as the agents of the state are subject
to the same rule and are to be held
thereto by the state itself.