The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-05-06
Creation Of An
 An-New England
 System Denounced
William H. Boyd, Counsel Tells Bay State Legislative Committee on Transportation Views on Sectional Issue involving Railroad Lines of Boston Maine and New York, New Haven < Hartford

l.
 William H. Boyd, counsel for O F. and M. J. Van Sweringen ant the Chesapeake & Ohio Nickel Plat railroad system, appeared befor' the committee to amplifyl earlier statements as to the views of th' railroad magnates on the New Eng land railroad question.
 The report of the New Englant governors railroad committee whfci for several months has been inves tigating the situation, with particu lar reference to consolidation pol icy, is scheduled to be made pubic tomorrow,
 Opening his address before thu committee to-day, Boyd said tha while the Van Sweringens would bt glad to extend their system into New England, "they feel that the! should not obtrude themselves intt a region contrary to the wishes ane desires. of the people of that re- gion."
 Any plan for the unification oi New England railroads into sin gle system, Boyd said. lis iil-ad' yised from any viewpoint"
 Here is summary of the var Sweringen plan as outlined py boyc to-day:
 rba Canadian National and Can adian Pacific to remain separate systems. - >-o Emo. land comprising the New Haven system to be allocated to the Penn- svIyania and Baltimore x onie and operated under equal 1oih' stock ownership. .u.
 The Boston & Maine to be ailo- cated to the Chesapeake Onlo Nickel Plate system. .s,
 The Boston & Albany ana one Rutland (except Rouses Point-Vs W danshurph line) to remain with tne New York Central.
 The so-called bridge lines to be annropriately allocated between the nroposed four eastern trunk line systems in such manner sas to give them access to the Hudson river rateways and direction connection with the New England railroads ai- located to them.
 All existing joint through routes. including differential rail routes ana all gateways, to be kept open un- less changed by order of the l. '. C'
 Rsxisting routes from New Eng land interior. points to New Engiana ports and existing water and rail difserentiaI routes applying through New England ports to be main tained, unless changed by order oi the I. c. c. :.
 Joint use of terminals to be left open for later consideration.
 Boyd spoke as follows:
 am here to speak to you as at torney and counsel for o. P. and M. I, Van Sweringen in response to your chairman's invitation, addressed to them, What have to say will pc said as their representative and as the representative of the Chesapeake ana ohio Nickel Plate System.
 The people. whom represent neither own nor hold any stock or other securities of any New England railroad or transportation company: While they would be glad to extend their system into New England, they feel, that they should not intrude themselves into a region contrary 10 the wishes and desires Of the peopie of that region. .o .
 When. on December g, 1929, the Interstate Commerce commission adopted and promulgated its perma. nent plan for the consolidation or the railroads of the United States into single systems, we looked upon the allocation of the New England railroads provided for in that plan as quite suitable; except only for the inclusion therein of certain lines west of the Hudson river. We did not overlook the order ant requirement of the commission that the railroad systems thus provided for should be independent in fact as well as m name" It is fair to assume that the commission imposed this condition' in part at least, in order to meet the reauirements of the mandatory pro vision of the law that in the creation of such systems "competition snail be preserved as fully as possible.
 Our first authorized statemen! with reference to the New England railroad situation was made Tn March. 1880. We then announced that it was our desire to continue to serve New England at it's gate-ways. that its gate-ways should be Kept open so that all trunk lines west ana south of the Hudson river would be able. SO far as their respective geo. graphical situations would permit. 10 com pete on equal terms for Ne" Enviand business. Even then we lad observed developments which in- dicated that some of your railroads were drifting toward a situation where they would be unable to qual- ifv under the Interstate Commerce commission requirements or mae, pendence in fact as we'll as Tn name. It was for this reason that we then called attention to the fact that your railroads were not, free from truhk line control or influence.
 Al tSn L. tention to this fact whenever ana wherever the opportunity presented itself: and 1t is not inappropriate here and now to reaffirm and re- assert that the Chesapeake ana Ohio Nickel Plate system would be content with the New England gate ways free and open to the competl- tion of all trunk lines on equal terms ana with the New England railroads entirely free from trunk line owner shin. control and influence.
 You will understand, of course, that this does not apply to the two Canadian lines which render a vaiu- able and, as we believe. a necessary service to certain parts of New Eng land. The existence of free and open yateways. for which we contend, ana inc freedom of New England raii- roads from trunk line control or in- f,mence, for which we likewise con tend. are not trivialities. although thev may seem so to many. In or der 10 visualize how vitally import. ant they are. you have but to recall fine declaration of the president Of inc Pennsylvania Railroad company that he would not dispose of the lat, ter's stock. fin the New Haven ana the Boston and Maine so long as the New York Central held the Boston and Albany. If the continued opera ton of the Boston and Albany under ,sase by the New York Central Is suf,ciently menacing to the Penn svivania interests to prompt the lat- tsr 10 acquire and hold. either itself er through an affiliated corporation. ia rge blocks of stock in the New rSaven and in the Boston and Maine. then surely the Chesapeake and