New Britain herald., 1915-10-16
Trial of New Haven Directors.
(New Haven Journal-Courier. )


 The average man will, we suspect, approach the consideration of the trial of the directors of the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad company with mingled feelings. Tn spite of the misfortunes which have overtaken the company, largely through reckless expenditures of money in financing a vision of rail- road consolidation which has by no manner of means been found faulty in principle, many of us have been unable to reconcile deliberate con- spiracy on the part of the directors with our personal knowledge of their characters. Many of have been equally unable to reconcile MT. Mel lens attitude as chief witness against these directors in the trial begun yesterday with the sense of justice among associates which usually pre- vails as a personal obligation
 To speak definitely only of those who reside in this section of the state of Connecticut while gladly attribut- ing to their associates a like reputa- tion for square dealing among the people of their section, there has been nothing in the conduct of these gentlemen hitherto to warrant the belief that they were men lacking to any degree in the probity and in tegrity with which they had always been accredited. They were men of recognized standing in the community, were foremost in movements Of charitable and philanthropic charac- ter, and in certain cases were ire quently drafted to represent their fellow townsmen in positions of an Important political charcter. With this record in their favor. It would be in the highest degree ungracious to accept true the charges brought against them by the government. If ever a group of men were ever en- titled to be considered innocent until proven guilty it is this group. Even if it is shown that they were actively connected with the company when those things were done which brought the railroad to the verge of bank ruptcy, it will still be necessary to prove, in order to convince many of us of their guilt that they were not more sinned against than shining.
 On the other hand, as the Hart ford Courant suggests, it would be more satisfactory to all concerned If Mr. Mellen was among the indicted and not the star witness TOT the gov 1 ernment. It strikes many that some how, by means of the laws surprises, | that the case has been turned upside down, and that, instead of those most responsible for what happened being l tried for their liberty, we find those | least responsible, or if responsible, no more responsible than as directors who followed their leader. To quote again from the Courant of Hartford:
 'The Mellen regime was a regime of i dictatorship, and those who think i they know say the dictator was Char les S. Mellen. He dominated the 1 board of directors; with his siren song of benevolent monopoly he cap tivated legislatures and put legisla- tive lobbying on the top shelf with the dodo. He professed faith in New Haven stock when it was not worth half its price, and the widows and 1 orphans have him to thank for being deprived of their income. It was on his urgent advice that they kept their stock; and they had no inside infor- nation later on when to sell stock short, and thus recoup their losses as he recouped his. For these and many other reasons the people of this part