The Connecticut labor news., 1923-08-25

states would approve state control and the guarantees that go with it.
 "There is good deal of camoufage in this New Haven railroad agitation and back of one of the smoke screens is the itching desire of Boston hnan- cial interests to control the New Ha- ven road. If they succeed in putting state control through on the plea of benefting New England industries they will have accomplished their pur- pose"
 MT. Holden declares, speaking of the proposal to exchange mortgage bonds for stock at the expense of investors in the bonds:
 "These bonds were purchased by trust companies and savings banks under the terms of the Connecticut statutes regulating the investment of trust funds. The women and children deriving income from trust funds are entitled to have their interests safe guarded
 "It is to be hoped that you will not lend the influence of your office to putting into operation the following recommendations of the commission:
 That the power to control the New Haven company and it's opera
  board of five trustees appointed for 10 years, two by the state of Connecti- cut, one by the state of Rhode Is land, and two by the state of Massa- chusetts.
 "fThat the states of Connecticut, Rhode Isalnd and Massachusetts, in order further to ensure the stability and credit of the New Haven com pany, undertake to guarantee prin- cipal and interest of a specified amount of bonds to be issued by the state trustees during the period of control. . While the directors are working out the problems that con front them, great care should be ex- ercised on the part of public officials and others that no further action credit the railroads still. retain"
 Now comes MT. filling with this l pert warning to the governor and the l public anent the taking over of the l roads by state trustees:
 s1 was astonished, for under the l constitutions of the United States l and of Connecticut the property of the New Haven company, used and l useful for railroad service, appraised by the Interstate Commerce Commis- i sion at some $3,5oo, COG, ,ooo, could not be so taken over, unless the several | states paid just compensation for the | property; and it is fair inference it would result in cost of traffic greater than could be borne.
 Nowhere in the report is, there any suggestion that the directors or ex- ecutive officers of the New Haven | of an agreement, or even discussed the proposition of cooperation, up on the terms suggested in the report.
 "Confessedly on this report the general assemblies of these respective states have not any power to enforce cooperation.
 Further, has 1t occurred to these committees that the New Haven com pany is essentially engaged in inter state commerce, and that it's opera lions are, and have been, under the supervision of the interstate com merce commission?
 Might 1t not be possible that the congress of the United States, would have something to say on this gigan- tic plan of taking over -$5oo, ,ooo, 900 of railroad property by state trustees? Especially {so, since the United States owns $88, 8,ooo,ooo of the mortgage bonds of the company.
 Some twenty odd miles of the New Haven system are in the state of New York, and the New York business of the New Haven is i'm mense Would New York consent that state trustees of New England should control the railroad lines in that state? In the absence of any suggestion of cooperation with the United States and New York, is it worth while to summon the general of Massachusetts, Con- necticut and Rhode Island to consid- CT what?"