Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1915-12-09
new HAVEN RUINED,
Says MELLEN, BY
j. s. PROSECUTION
At the Time Indictments Were
Brought the Roads Finan-
cial Affairs Were in
Critical Condition.

Hartford railroad ana us uHtN'o'o az
cJmplshcd the practical ruin OF that
railroad in the opinion of Charles >
Mcllen as expressed on cross-cxa minaton
to-day at the trial of the eleven former
directors of the road on the charge or
criminal violation of the Sherman law
1t was from fear, he said, That TINS
would be the result of the inquiry into
New lIaven affairs begun I'm 1917 by the
federal grand jury in New York. that he
got Lewis Cass Ledyard to see President
Taft and then the attorney-general'
George w. Wickersham, and induce them
al leas, to limit the inquiry to the So
called Grand Trunk dcal-the alleged
suppre ssion of the Grand Trunks pro-
posed New England extensions.
This was done" continued Mr.. Mellen,
but it meant indictment and my destruc-
ton and the rest they accomplished
later"
The former New Haven president en-
planned that at the time the New Ravens
financial affairs were in critical condi-
ton" The reason for this was, he said,
that or account Of the conflicting laws
of the New England States the road was
virtually unable to refund its obligations
except through short term otes and n
large amount of these floating indemnities
accumulated.
These financial questions were what
it was desired to present to the people
at Washington" he testified. The limit
ing of the scope of the investigation was
| for the benefit of the New Haven ] was
sure that Mr.. Swacker's probe would do
what it did do, practically ruin the New
York New Haven & Hartford for n time
or period of years. Up to the time of
my indictment-this persecution or what
/ ever YOU want to call five had always
paid dividends and had a handsome sur
plus"
This testimony was adduced by Charles
! f. Choatc, of counsel for the defense,
after Frank NJ. Swacker for the govern
ment had elected from the witness las
evidence against the defendant Ledyard
alone" that Ledyard had successfully used
his influence with the President and the
encouragement to prevent the grand
jury inquiry from going into the charge
Of monopoly same charge upon which
the defendants are now being tried.
The defendants attorney then proceedc
to elicit from the witness testimony in
tended to give the Grand Trunk deal it.
Mellen pictured the Grand Trunks activi-
ties in extending its lines into New Eng
land, not as having been designed for the
purpose of legitimate competition witt,
the New Haven, but as a threat to force
the hand OF the New Haven in connection
with the latter's ira f1ic relations with the
Canadian Pacific. the Grand Trunks chic;
rival. Mr. Mellen disclosed that the New
traffic arrangement with the Canadian
Pacific whereby all of the New Haven's
territory was opened up to that road
through it's junction with the Boston &
Maine at Newport. Vt. The Canadian Pa
cihc also got by this arrangement n
cheaper differential to New York city than
any of the other trunk lines.
AT all times" said Mr.. Mellen. 1--WE
were ready to give the Grand Trunk
the same advantage. but Hays thcr
president OF the Grand Trunk wanted
more"
GLOW much more?' he was asked.
"Just as much as he could get.
wrote to Hays that we could only trea,
with him on the same basis as our ar.
rangement with the Canadian Pacific
And after that he made these dem.
onstrations?' asked Mr. Choate. refer.
ring to the proposed extension OF the
Grand Trunk line from Palmer Mass
to Providence and from White River
Junction. Vt, to Boston.
Gle did" replied the witness.
The Palmer-Providence extension Mr.
Melen characterized as a venture which
could not have been profitable to the
Grand Trunk and which served M
strategical advantage. 1t went through
territory already adequately cared fol-
by the New Haven and it's proposed
Providence connection with New York
by steamboat gave 1t no connection su,
perlor to the one it already enjoyed from
New London. tho terminus of its New
London northern road.
Mr.. Mellen denied he had ever sug
gested to the Grand Trunk that the line
be abandoned.
ION the other hand" he said. 81
wanted them to build it ! wanted tc
see them punished for all the trouble
there had been between U.S. I knew
they'd lose money and lot of It," TIL.
real reason 1t was given up, he said
was the inability OF the Grand Trunk tc
finance It, He had seen an offica
cablegram from London to that effect
he swore.
After the death Of Hays. Mellen sait
that he made virtually the same offe,
to Edison j. Chamberlin Hays successor
and that this eliminated In the memo
randa of November Is, 1912, which wa.
the basis of proposed agreemen
whereby the Grand Trunk mot onl,
got our territory. but continued to EMO,
its existing lines"
The agreement was OF such an ad
vantageous character to the Crane
Trunk, he said that it would have re
quired a modification of the New Haveni
arrangements with the Canadian Pacific
on lower basis. 1t would have beer
reached. he added had 1t not been fo
"untoward events"--the grand jury in
vestigation.
AS illustrating the New Haven's ALLEGED
innocent intentions. Mr.. Choate brOugh
out that the agreement contemplated tina
in case of dispute between the two roads
the chairman of the Interstate Commerc
Commission was to appoint tn
arbiters to settle II.
Had the agreement been contaminated
Mellen said not only would the peopl
Of New England have enjoyed lowe
rates. but through an arrangement 4
handle the Grand Trunks export traffic
the port of Boston would have secure'
increased shipping business and facilities
New England. he said. was only "a
switching yard for trunk line roads" Fo
this reason. no rates could be made eithe
In or out of New England without thu