Year: 1874

same in nature, though differing widely in


circumstances and local coloring. England


has small area and very dense population,


and its comparatively short roads with great


abundance of local traffic are more favorable


to railway profits than our long lines, running


in many cases through sparsely settled re-


gions. Another point of difference lies in


the fact that England has a comparatively


homogeneous population, and the railway


controversy has not become a sectional ques-


ton as it has in this country. The railroad


agitation would have been postponed for


many years on this side of the Atlantic If the


agricultural West had not set the controversy


in motion. The problem in this country, be-


sides being larger in extent and stirring popu-


lar passions to greater depth, is made more


difficult and unmaDageable by the division OF


Legislative powers under our political system.


In Great Britain there is but one Legislature


possessing authority to grant railroad char


ters; in this country we have thirty eight
Congress and thirty-seven State Legislatures


We lack what England possesses a lawmaking
authority competent to deal with every branch
of the subject in Its whole extent without rais-
ing doubtful questions of jurisdiction and
evoking clashing powers. English railway
legislation can proceed on a uniform plan, with
no other impediments than the inherent diff
Guilty of the subject whereas in the United
States the Legislative authority is 80 split up
and divided and may act on such jarring prin-
ciples that the wisest among us cannot see
his way clear to q satisfactory solution


The occasion of the article in the Saturday
Repie,c to which we have referred Was the
diminished earnings of the English railways
during the last six months and the small
dividends expected to be declared on the 1st
of July. This falling off of receipts is ac-
counted for by the prevailing depression of
business, and most Of our American roads
are doubtless suffering from the same cause
But the transient vicissitudes of railway
traffic raise no question worth discussing. 1t
is in the ordinary course of things that rail
roads prosper or suffer with the communities
they serve but if this were all public jour
nails would have no other duty than simply to
record the facts. But the Saturday Revic,o passes
from this feature of the situation to peril
nent general discussion Of the effects OF Par
liamentary legislation on the security of rail
way property. It is only in this view that an
instructive parallel is suggested between Eng
lish and American railroads. 1t appears that in


1873, some nine or ten months ago, Parliament


passed an act somewhat similar to the recent


legislation in some of our States-that is, an


act for regulating railway charges. That act


of ParIamen has proved to be dead letter


but another has been proposed this year which


would be more likely to be enforced, and the


Saturday Revieu protests against the principle


both of the useless act which was passed


and the proposed act which is in contempla


ton. The ground Of opposition to such legis-


lation is that it destroys the rights Of prop


erty.


Without closely following the reasoning Of
the Saturday Reue,o, we Will repeat its sub
stance with American applications, because
the subject must be surveyed on all sides be-
: fore safe judgment can be reached, and al
: arguments are entitled to fair hearing. L
: will not be disputed that our railroads, with
e all their mismanagement and extortions, have
r been, ON the whole, great advantage to the
e country and the most powerful means of its
i rapid growth and Development Most of oul


roads have been built with the aid of foreign


capital and whatever powers over thei
: charters may have been reserved by the
State governments duty and interest alike
require that the people who thus invested
their money be treated with an honest regarG
= for their reasonable expectations. In examin


ing the charters of roads whose bonds they
;, were induced to purchase they were entitled
= to believe that those charters would stand a.
. the permanent measure of their rights. L


they had supposed it possible that the Legis
e latures which authorized the building oi
l the roads would exercise discretionary power
q to reduce ordinary charges they would moi
i have risked their money. 1t is, therefore, 9
s serious question, which addresses itself to the
S moral sense Of the country, whether it is con
/ sistent with honesty and good faith to disap
S point the expectations Of confding people
Q who supposed there would be no materia
e abridgment of the rights conferred by the


charters An honorable State government


Will not attempt to release itself from the rules
: of equity and justice and inasmuch as an
extreme exercise of the reserved power ove1
railroad charters would operate as confsca.
ton of the property of innocent stockholders
the sovereignty of the States should be used
with scrupulous caution and reserve.


But descending from the high ground o.
equity and honor, and looking at the subject


from the point of view of mere interest and
= expediency, there are still strong reasons why
{ all such legislative action should be carefully
: weighed. 1t is for the general interest that
l railroad property should be fairly remunera
= tive and profitable. The argument is Otter
20 made that if Congress should assert it
authority to regulate and reduce steamboat