Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1906-05-25

The Kansas City.Journal, Republican
paper, is authority for the statement that
the managers of an eastern railroad have
refused all requests for free transporta-
ton coming from the congressman who
supported the Esch-Townsend bill. The
Journal says that the president of this
road has written to certain members of
congress letter saying that since favors
do not induce on the part of the recipient
"even a fair consideration of the rail-
roads rights" his company will grant
no more of these free passes. In the
same letter this railroad president says:
Il never was in favor of granting po-
litacal transportation and now | have a
good opportunity to cut off some of those
Objectionable deadheads. am not hand
ling them with gloves, either. Transpor-
tation has been given them in the past
upon the theory that they were friends,
but when we needed friends they were
not there"
Several years ago a member of the
Illinois Legislature applied to the presi-
dent of the Santa Fe railroad for pass.
In reply the legislator received the fol-
ing:
Your letter of the 22nd to President
Ripley requesting an annual over the
railroad of this company has been re-
ferred to me. A couple of years ago,
after you had been furnished with an
annual over this line, you voted against
bill which you knew this company was
directly interested in. Do you know of
| art,o ,lar xul,xy xra
should favor you with an annual this
year.?
These letters state as plainly as
language can that railroad gives passes
to Legislators and to public officials as a
matter of business expecting to receive a
favorable consideration in return.
They show futher that the legislator
who refuses to recognize the pass as a
bride must not expect to get any more
passes.
Perhaps the most striking illustration
of the evils of the pass system. and also
demonstration of the fact that the evil
is recognized in law, is to be found in
the livery general practice among our
courts. If it was known that juror in
case to which railroad company was
party held a pass over that railroad
company's lines, the presentation OF
that fact to the court would bar that
juror from participation in the case
Recently such an objection was raised in
a western court. 1t was shown that q
juror had received trip pass over the
lines of the railroad company which hap
pened to be defendant in that particular
case. The attorney for the plaintiff
made objection on this ground, and the
judge promptly told the juror to stanC
aside At the same time, however, the
judge who made that ruling had in hi'
pocket an annual pass over the lines Of
that same railroad company.
1t is true that the man who had &C
cepted trip pass was not qualified t
serve as juror in that case. Who will
deny the truth of the statement that thu
man who had accepted an annual pas
from that same line was not qualified Il
act as judge in that case?
The whole pass system is an abomina
ton. When pass is given to privat,
citizen it is unjust to the travelling pub
: lie generally, and when it is given to tn,
! public official it is given with the expec
| tation that the company will receiv,
| considerably more in the way of officia
favors-in the matter of things dom