The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-24
MORGAN'S
 PREDICTION States Conflict With Federal Courts, HEPBURN BILL CAUSED IT Eventually Means Government
 Ownership of Roads. Prophetic Letter Which was written By Deceased Senator Sometime
 Ago is Made Public For
 First Time.
RY. A. l. sToEER.

 As Is well known. only three sena- tors voted against the railroad rate bill when 1t passed Congress. They were the two Alabama Senators Messrs. Morgan and Pettus--and MT. Foraker of Ohio. The Ohio statesman in his recent speeches, has been pre- dieting that the Supreme Court will eventually knock the Hepburn law Into "smithereens" and says he has no apology to make to his constituents or the country, for having opposed the measures. even though his reelection is at stake. and he is extremely anx- tive in the upper branch of Congress.
 Some months after Congress ad- journed last year, a young newspaper correspondent of this city. addressed a letter to Senator Morgan and requested his views on the new law. The ven- erable Alabamian replied at length, but at that time did not care to have his expressions published. In one par ticular at least, the letter was pro- phetic--certainly so far as it related to the conflict that General Morgan believed would occur beweeen State and Federal courts. Senator Morgan in- tended to make speech on the sub ject last December. but his health was so bad then he did not carry out his intention.
 The letter is as follows:
 Florence, Ala, Sept. 30, 1906.
 Dear str:-The Hepburn rate bill contains every element of government ownership of railroads that human wit could devise except the mere naked legal title and the income derived from the property. The amount of the in- come Is also controlled by the United States under a guarantee that 1t should be> '.remunerative' There is no room left for splitting hairs on the proposi- tion that the government has taken charge of the gailrobds al completely as if 1t was a receiver appointed by a court of chancery. Now if this ls true MT. Bryan Is insisting on the same thing that Is now the law, only adding what must ultimately result from the execution of that law, name ly, that the government will pay the stockholders for their interests, and drive them out from all pretense of any right of ownership, or control. of the property. Of course, when that is done the government will take over the legal title and be bound to pay the bonds and other outstanding in- debtedness of the railroads. No other result Is possible if the Hepburn act is fully executed. This will never be done, because the States will not per init it, but the litigation and conflicts that must arise will be a curse to the country.
 All of this trouble and danger would have been avoided (and can now be avoided) if the Hepburn law had been based on correct principles. or if 1t Is changed or amended now so that 1t will rest on those principles. The govern ment has no occasion or need to take control of the property and incomes of the railroads, or their management, for the purpose of regulating the rates of transportation" among the States. If Congress has said: You shall not engage in transportation among the States Sexcept upon the following con ditions." the railroads would have had the option to quit the business. which they would not have done. under any just regulation of their rates, or their income. If they preferred to quit the business of interstate transportation, all their charter rights and all their property would have been beyond the control of Congress. If they preferred to continue in the business on the terms and conditions prescribed in the law (the Hepburn law. I mean), they would have retained all their charter rights and obligations, and would oniy have surrendered to the government the con- troI of their property for the purposes named in the act. Instead of this the Hepburn law takes their property as matter of right and without their con sent, and subjects 1t to the unrestricted control of Congress That is simply confscation. In this view of the sit uation nothing could be more destruc- tive of the sovereign rights of the States that control these railroad cor porations. or more flagrantly in vio- latton of the rights of the stock holders.
 Congress possibly has the right to regulate the rates of interstate trans portation by common carriers. as a condition of their engaging in that business. and if they accept the privi- lege they take 1t subject to the condi- tons so imposed. But Congress has no power or right to take railroad property and control it in the con- duet of interstate transportation, un- til 1t has first extinguished the owner ship of the stockholders of the cor porations. The Hepburn law places the rightfuI control. management and income of the railroads in the power of Congress without the consent of the owners or of the States that control the corporations (and can destroy them by revoking their charters). and in doing so exercise the highest possible rights of ownership.
 Mir. Bryan thinks that 1t is logical, and that 1t will come to pass. that the United States can and will complete the conhscation of the Hepburn law by paying for the property. and there by changing our title from one based on confiscation to a title based on con- demnation of the property to public uses, and make the transaction mere respectable in appearance, but not in fact.
 Mir. Bryan does not see the ad- vantage thIs situation gives him in changing the basis of the Hepburn law by demanding further legislation which can be readily done, and he plunges to the conclusion that Govern ment ownership is the only solution of the clouds that have gathered in his mind.
 If he had said or if thA DAnAAA---A-