The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-05-26
MeIIen Shows Methods By Which The Connecticut And
 R. |. TroIleys We're Merged

The Consoli dated Railway charter was amended by thes Gonnecticut legisIa- tare to enablestl this 5consolidation to be carried out and we adopted that char ter as the result -of the merger for the charter, and it is the present char ter of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad. After the merger we went back to the legislature, and reported all the facts, and had an act of approval Of all that was done.
 O. Who got-that done2 Got it done2 sssKvshy the Iegis1a- ture did #. did not supp pose any body got it.
 c. who represented you in tfaat7
 A Whoever we retained. MT. Ro- bins general
 O. MT. Robins {.
 A O. T did not say that. .tE1pu sl1t syoIls said something about MT. R 9 bfns < s3.ss
 A. did. but T did not say what you i1afer.s I said M r. R obirs-I start ed to say 1T. obins was our general counsel and anyone who had anything to do with the Connectic Legislature necessarily reported to him. ala ss gr the the amount of s1 oos 100 Issued to Mr. Ro- bins in 19 0 represent 1907 190s II think. Ieo6 th en- What Robins Did,
 A. MT Robins at that time was 9 lawyer practicing in Hartford He Used to represent us before the Iegis- lature before he became general coun- sel. He was in private practice That was his. fee for his services up to that time.
 o. In what natter
 A. Tn all matters directing the New Haven Railroad that had to have leg islative authority.
 Q. Dzd his services include ser vices before fhe 1egis1ature in con nection with the Consolidated Railway Coz
 A It included all services that he performed. whatever that might have been. do not recall the legislative session by year when the Consoli-. dated charter was granted
 @. Was not the principal service performed that of mo1ding public opinion in Conn ecticut?
 A. should have to refer you to MT. Robins if you are going into the detail of his service. MT. Grim He has testified with re- gard to that. MT. Robins has testi- fled in this investigation.
 MT. Folk. MT. Mel1en knows
 Mr. Grim. He says he does not.
 MT MeI1en. know thatz MT Ro-s
 
 mony. know tlatAI paid him the $10o, 900 and ann very sure he got the money. and I hope he made a. good use of it.
 By MT. Folk.
 o. That was the s1o0.ooo that he testified was for the purpose of mould ing public opinion in Connecticut2
 A. That was this self same $ s1o0.- ooo
 c. For moulding public opinion in connection with this conso1idated Railway Company?
 MT. Grim. He testified to a good many things in connection with init 1t is fair to put in his testimony and not ask the question in that way
 MT. Folk. I am asking the witness for his knowledge. ai
 MT Mellen- I only know in a gen- er'aI way the work that MT. Robins did worth the fee, and approved the bill.
 By MT. Folk
 @. And this whole merger was ap-. proved by the Connecticut legislature?
 A. Absolutely !. It was uthorized. and then after it was effected it was approved.
 o. MT Robins was the legislative attorney Of the New Haven interests in the matter A. Before he became general coun- sel, yes.
 o. What was the custom of the New Haven, to go ahead and do any thing it pleased, and then after do-s ing it ask the. legislature to ratify it ?
 A never knew of any such pol icy, but frequeHtly
 O. That was done in this Instance?
 A. No, not by long shot
 e. What did the legislature ratffy when it ratified this merger?
 A. It ratified an act accomplished under the authority of acts passed in previous years by the Connecticut leg
 e. Why was is necessary to have the Connecticut legislature ratify those acts?
 A. Probably to make assurance doa1bGy sure that there was no slip in a matter of that Importance invo1v- ing $175, 100000 or $20o, ,0oo, ,ooo.
 O. And for that you paid $10o.0 900 fee9
 A. No sir. did not say so. The s100. 900 was paid before the ratif1ca- ton. and before
 @. And the ratification fo1lowed2
 A. A. long time afterwards The sessions are only once in two years. My impression is the Consolidated charter was granted at one session. and the ratification occurred at a fol- lowing session. There was an inter val of two years
 @. You say there was no question raised as to the legality of these mat ters before you asked the legislature to ratify it2
 A. never heard any question raised regarding the legality. ! o. Then why go to all this trouble to get the Legislature of Connecticut to ratify it?
 A Tn 3, matter of that importance it seems to me it is advisable to stop every loop-ho1e for criticism or on which to found a lawsuit. It seems to me that is a part
 o. And this legislative ratification was asked for simply as a matter of precaution. and not because there was any question
 A. No question so far as I ever