The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-09-08

l
 New I-a.I..:. I:o-74l., Sept 6, 1910. Messrs, Everett G. Hill. President. l Arthur s. Barnes, Secretary,
 Connecticut Editorial Association, New Haven, Conn.
 Dear sirs:
 My former letter replying to your inquiry as to my views concerning proposed legislation affecting public clear the untruth of a common popular n1isconception of the attitude of rail- roads toward the public interest. I have no fault to find with the way ceiVed. At the same time, there were a good many comments that seemed | judices which would make an attempt 1 at reasonable discussion with the hold CTS of them a hopeless waste of time. NO OPPOSITION TO LEGAL REGU-
 LAYTON OF RAILROADS.
 The president of a local Business | Mems Association, in a newspaper let ter, asserted that the railroads" have consistently opposed the E1kinS Law and all other beneicent railroad legis- lation. I submit that this 1; assertion iaa railroad company of this State never opposed the Elkins Law, nor any other is now generally acknowledged.
 The statute books of this State are full of laws concerning railroads and their operation. There is no other bus mess in this State as to which such publicity is required. We have to re- port all the imaginable details of our organization and business not only to the Connecticut Railroad Commission CTS, but to the Railroad Commission CTS of other States and to the Inter state Commerce Commission More over, there is no other business in this State which is so variousIy and thor ough1y regulated by law, All this great body of railroad statutes has been enacted without serious oppo- sition from the railroads.
 The citizens of this State who con stitute a majority of our Board of Di- rectors would not permit me, if I de- lute1y confident that no law concern ing railroads which was nnanifestly for reason why they should. I am abso- 1ute1y confident that no lay concern ing railroads can be proposed that will benefit the public in the long run, which will not also benefit the rail roads themselves. I. also absolutely believe that any proposed law which of this State will injure not only the great body of our employees, but also the general public
 | that there will be no factious oppo- sition from me or my associates to the ena ctmer1t of any law regarding rail- roads, which after hearing all views, the thoughtful minds of this State shall approve.
 NEED OF CAREFUL DELIBER-
 ATTON.
 My attention has just been called, after an absence for few days rest, to a letter written to you by MT. Jones, President of the State Business Mems Association do not intend to seriously criticise his general state -ment of evils sought to be remedfed by proposed legislation. It is evident. however, that a good many distinct legislative purposes are to be met by unusual, if so comprehensive statute were beyond benefit from a prolonged and careful criticism.
 REGULATION OF RAILROAD
 RATES
 l It is impossible ito adequately discuss within the compass of single letter the efficiency and property of the remedies suggested for the various real or possible evils which are described in that letter. I should like in this words regarding the proposed means of regulating railroad service and rail- road rates. be held strictly to the performance of duties to the public. But I do not ] think that this is because they are l enjoy Gin common with every manu- facturer who wishes to develop a wat CT power), the right to condemn land | a right which generally means priv 1 ilege of paying for the land needed several times what it is worth
 l firmly believe that every man who I era1 public is in true sense a public ser want, and that he owes it to the public to deal fairly, to make his prices reason l useful goods and services as the prices paid will warrant.
 The great leading case in which the Supreme Court of the United States 1 first definitely sustained legislative l interference with the rates charged in 1 a given business, related to the rates charged by Chicago grain elevators. l The owners of these elevators were not necessarily corporations, and enjoyed 1 no special privileges. The decision of I that throughout English and American l history our fathers have asserted a fundamental right of their govern 1 rnent to prevent extortion by those I who perform services for the general public.
 1 PROGRAM OF PROGRESSIvEs. | Those who have attentive1y read the political speeches recently made in the west must have noted that the pro- gram of the "reformers' or "progfes- 1 sives'' is not confined ito dealing with railroad, telephone and lfghtingl com I panies. It expressly embraces all cor porations, and all Important business which deal in the ''necessaries of life.'' 1 The idea is in the air that the pres ent high cost of living is due in some measure to unreasonable prices charged the general public in many lines of | formed people of moderate views say | ing that people of small incomes who l buy the necessaries of life in small quantities often suffer seriously from | false weighing and measuring, from adulterations of quality in foc5 and clothing, and from extortfonate prices.
 do not personally know how much l foundation there is for the belief which l I have described. But if people gener-. ally entertain these beliefs, I regard l it as certain that there will be an at tempt to regulate by law the unfair ness and extortion complained of. It will never seem sufficient relief if the | law saves the resident of a small town five cents of his railroad fare to the city and still leaves him subject to