THE RAILROAD QUESTION. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HOK IRA COLBY, 
 
 REPRESENTATIVE FROM CLAREMONT, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 * V 
 
 House of Representatives in favor of the 
 Hazen Bill, 
 
 SEPTEMBER 21 , 1887. 
 
 Conxnrtr, ft. 
 
 PRINTED BY THE REPUBLICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION, 
 
 1 887 . 
 
 ro -s-a. -sni 
 
\ 
 
 v 
 
 l 
 
r 
 
 «o 
 
 C 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 1-7 
 
 C 
 
 a 
 
 
 e<s>n£^ 
 
 SPEECH. 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
 } 
 
 \ 6 
 
 > i- ’ 
 
 o 
 
 £ 
 
 *p 
 
 O 
 
 £ 
 
 CO 
 
 Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen of the Legislature : 
 
 I have listened to the gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Marston, 
 with a great deal of pleasure, as I always do. In concluding, 
 he asked you to take notice of the fact that the eyes of the 
 people of the state are upon you. I hope, gentlemen, you will 
 remember that fact ; that you will listen carefully to what I have 
 to say upon this matter ; and not only renpember that, but remem- 
 ber what has been said by way of argument upon our side of 
 this question from the beginning. I do not wish to detract from 
 the 'arguments that have been made by any gentleman, but I do 
 say, that in my judgment there has not been a legitimate argu- 
 ment made in favor of the Atherton bill from the beginning up 
 to this time, that has a solid foundation. I cannot go over all 
 that has been said. If I could take it up step by step and com- 
 ment upon it, and your patience would hold out, I think I could 
 show you that what I say is true. But time will not permit. I 
 cannot advert to a great portion of what has been said. I 
 must leave you to fill up from the arguments of others what I 
 shall leave out. I have had the misfortune, if it may be called 
 such, at two stages of this debate to have my intended argument 
 largely made by other gentlemen who have preceded me upon 
 the same side. Mr. Branch, of Weare, said in a better way 
 than I could a considerable amount of what I intended to say 
 to you, and so I am content. I am glad he said it, and I hope 
 you will remember it. Mr. Bell, who appeared before you this 
 morning, has done the same thing : a very excellent argument 
 in most of its points, and, aside from some expressed fear of 
 monopoly, it was a perfect argument in favor of the Hazen bill. 
 I thought, when the gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Bell, had fin- 
 ished, that it would not be worth while for me to advert again 
 
4 
 
 to the legislation of 1883 ; but some remarks made by the last 
 gentleman upon the floor have made me think that perhaps I 
 had better begin where I left off the other day, and add a little 
 to the argument I then made as to the law of 1883. 
 
 I was showing you, not for the purpose of reflecting on any one, 
 that the gentleman from Nashua had changed his mind, or that he 
 occupies a different position now from that which he then did. I 
 was showing you by extracts, from the Nashua Telegraph what 
 the views of the gentleman from Nashua, Mr. Moore, were in 
 1883 upon the subject of the law then enacted. I understand, 
 from some utterances of his that I have lately seen, he denies 
 that he has made any change in his views. As I understand it, 
 he puts it somewhat in this way : Admitting that the law of 
 1883 was a general law, he says it was a general law passed 
 for a special purpose. That, in short, as I understand it, is 
 the position of the gentleman from Nashua. Mr. Speaker and 
 gentlemen, the law of 1883, as has been clearly shown by the 
 argument of the gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Bell, was broader 
 than that. Under it the opportunity was given to the Boston, 
 Concord & Montreal and the Northern railroads to unite with 
 the Concord. Under it was given the opportunity for the Eastern 
 and the Boston & Maine to unite. But, gentlemen, the law of 
 1883 was broader, and was intended to be broader, than that. 
 It has been said, if gentlemen had understood that it was to ter- 
 minate in a lease by the Boston & Lowell of these northern 
 roads, it could not have commanded twenty votes upon the floor 
 of that house. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, if it had been asked 
 of the legislature of 1883 to pass any special legislation looking 
 to the union of those roads and leaving the matter just there, 
 it would not have commanded twenty votes on the floor of that 
 house. It was in recognition of that broader view which the 
 legislature had, — it was in recognition of the strength of the 
 principle of consolidation, — that these railroads, which then had, 
 as I admit, a special purpose underneath that bill, drew the gen- 
 eral railroad law and presented it to the legislature of 1883. 
 The railroads of that time knew, and I think the railroads of 
 the present time will find out, that the people of New Hampshire 
 are not in favor of any such special legislation as that proposed 
 by the Atherton bill. The legislature of 1883 fully understood 
 
5 
 
 and committed itself to the idea of general consolidation, and if 
 the law then proposed had not been recognized as a general law 
 it could not have been enacted : the current of thought and feel- 
 ing were in that direction. That was the tendency of the time, 
 and the railroads dared not present a bill not general in its char- 
 acter. They knew full well that if they put it to that legisla- 
 ture simply that these three railroads in this part of the state 
 should unite, and the two in the other part of the state should 
 unite, their bill would be defeated. They understood it as well 
 then as they will understand it now, and so they made the bill 
 as broad as they did. I refer you, gentlemen, in addition to 
 references made the other day, to the utterance of Judge Cross 
 in his argument before the railroad committee. Judge Cross 
 said the principle of consolidation has been accepted in New 
 Hampshire, and in illustration of what he meant he named sev- 
 eral instances where it had taken place, and among others he 
 named the consolidation, the ownership by the Boston & Lowell 
 of the Manchester & Keene, thus bringing before the committee 
 that he was addressing, and before the members of the legisla- 
 ture then present, the fact that the Boston & Lowell Railroad at 
 that very time was the owner, as he stated it, in whole, but as 
 the fact was, only in part, of the Manchester & Keene, and 
 was at that time operating it with the consent of the Concord, 
 which owned the other half under a decree of the supreme court 
 of the state, making it unquestionably a legal operation of that 
 road ; — such being the situation, they were clearly included with- 
 in the terms of the act. 
 
 In addition to this, I desire to show you an extract cut from 
 the columns of the Daily Monitor of 1883, then distributed, as 
 it has been during this session, through the house day by day, 
 enumerating the railroads within the state and without the state 
 that might be consolidated or leased by virtue of the act. 
 Twenty-four railroads within the state and some eight railroads 
 outside the state are named ; and among those eight the Boston 
 & Lowell. 
 
 Can any man properly say, in the light of these facts, that the 
 legislature were not fully informed in regard to the matter 
 of the Boston & Lowell’s being included in the terms of the act 
 of 1883, and that they did not act in the light of that informa- 
 
6 
 
 tion and did not know what they were doing? It has been said 
 that the intent of the law of 1883 is to be gathered from the 
 utterances of persons who participated in the debates in the 
 house. The gentleman from Exeter has told you what he said 
 in that debate, namely, that all the railroads within the state 
 might be consolidated under that bill, and he has told you that 
 nobody denied it. Other gentlemen referred to the same matter 
 in the debates that then transpired. I sav this merely to show 
 you that the legislature knew perfectly well what they were do- 
 ing. But this is not the proper way to determine the intent of 
 the law. It would be strange, would it not, gentlemen, if one 
 of you should come into my office, and ask me the meaning of 
 the law of 1883, if I, instead of going to my shelves and taking 
 down the statutes, should say to you, “ I cannot quite tell. I 
 have got to write to some gentleman, perhaps the speaker of that 
 house, or some other prominent man, the chairman of the railroad 
 committee, to find out what people said at that time.” Would 
 not that be a singular way to find out the intent of the law? 
 Should I not rather go to my shelf and take down the statutes 
 of the state, and open to the text and read the sections, and 
 undertake to tell you from them the meaning of the law? Is 
 not that the wav to determine the meaning of the law ? What 
 force is there in the talk we have had addressed to us on this 
 subject? The meaning of the law is to be gathered from the law 
 itself. My friend from Laconia, Mr. Stone, sa}^s, “ Gen- 
 tlemen of the legislature, if you were a court, that would be the 
 way to determine the intent of the law ; but you are not a 
 court.’’ Gentlemen, the constitution of the state points out 
 to you in all doubtful matters the tribunal to which you shall 
 apply for the meaning and interpretation of the laws. That 
 tribunal is the supreme court. You who have been here before 
 know, and all of you understand, that frequently the legis- 
 lature of the state, either the house or the senate, have applied 
 to the supreme court for their opinion. That is the constitu- 
 tional tribunal for such purpose, and the method of the court is 
 the proper method of interpretation ; that is, by the examination 
 of the text of the law itself. Turning to the law, and reading 
 the 18th section, who can for a moment doubt that railroads 
 outside the state operating roads within the state are included? 
 
T 
 
 The gentleman from Exeter says that what was intended is 
 this, “all railroads legally operating roads within the state;” 
 and that this is the meaning of the act. Gentlemen, just ap- 
 ply your common-sense to this proposition. If the legislature 
 intended to say “all railroads legally operating roads within the 
 state,” would they not have used that term? Most certainly, 
 if they meant to make such a distinction. But they used the 
 plain words, “all roads operating roads within the state,” and 
 these are the words made use of by the Daily Monitor. In the 
 second part of the extract cut from the Monitor are the words, 
 “ roads outside New Hampshire, but operating roads within 
 it.” Such are the words, and such was understood to be their 
 meaning. 
 
 But, gentlemen, the supreme court have had this matter before 
 them. This matter of the meaning of the law of 1883 has been 
 before the court, and it is well understood that the court found 
 the text of the law on the point under consideration too plain 
 to make anything out of it except exactly what the reading 
 of it makes to any understanding. There were four objections 
 to the lease before the court in the case, namely, — “That 
 roads outside the state operating roads within the state ” meant 
 “legally operating ;” that competing roads could not lease each 
 other ; and that the Northern and Boston, Concord & Montreal 
 were competing roads. Another was the constitutional objec- 
 tion, which finally prevailed ; and another objection still was, 
 that the roads did not physically connect. Those four objections 
 were made to the court against the lease of the Northern Rail- 
 road to the B. & L., and no others. These matters were fully 
 discussed before the court ; and at a certain term of the court 
 it came to be understood that the court found nothing in any 
 objection before them except the constitutional objection, as it 
 was called ; that is, that there was no provision made in the act 
 for dissenting stockholders. On this question they signified to 
 counsel that they desired further briefs ; and very voluminous 
 briefs were made and furnished to the court. The decision of 
 the court followed, and showed but a single defect in the law. 
 The court knew very well that this matter was coming before 
 this legislature. I desire that 3 7 ou will consider this point. Do 
 you suppose that the supreme court would fail to make known 
 
8 
 
 all the defects they found in the law, knowing that the legislat- 
 ure were going soon to convene, and that this subject would 
 come under their consideration for action? It had been talked 
 about ; it was well understood it would come before the legis- 
 lature. The legislature might wish to amend the law, might 
 wish to remedy any defect found in it. They might wish to 
 modify it ; there might be a contest over it ; — in such state of 
 the case do you suppose the supreme court, finding the law to 
 be defective because the rights of dissenting stockholders were 
 not provided for, when they made known this defect, would not 
 have made known any other defect they had discovered on the 
 points raised? Would the supreme court be likely to take such 
 a course as that in a matter of grave importance, just before a 
 legislature is convened to act upon the subject? It seems ab- 
 surd. And here, gentlemen, I think we may dismiss the point 
 as to the intent of the law of 1883. I have spoken at greater 
 length in regard to this matter than I should have done had I 
 not felt that legislation involving a principle acknowledged to 
 be good and useful ought to receive a fair and full trial, and 
 the effort be made to amend and perfect it rather than to 
 repeal it. 
 
 I do not think it wise for one legislature to hastily undo the 
 work of another, and so breed confusion in our laws and in the 
 conduct of business. Such action should be taken only in 
 obedience to very powerful reasons. It is also of some conse- 
 quence as bearing upon the question of what is fair and equal 
 justice towards the Boston & Lowell Railroad. If the gentle- 
 man from Manchester had listened carefully to what I said, he 
 would not have spent an hour and a half in trying to combat a 
 proposition which he imagined I had put forth, but which in fact 
 I had not. I said, I freely admit that it was the design of these 
 roads under that general railroad law to unite, and the railroad 
 law was to give them their opportunity ; but if they did not take 
 that opportunity, no man in that legislature, no man who had 
 anything to do with the passage of that law, ever dreamed for a 
 single moment that others were debarred from taking their oppor- 
 tunity. That is what I said ; and he went on for an hour and a 
 half quoting arguments and statements, and making statements 
 of his own in regard to somebody or other who had said some- 
 
9 
 
 thing about a union of these roads. I did not deny all that. I 
 admit all that ; but I said the legislation of that time was broader, 
 and meant something more than that. 
 
 Well, gentlemen, the legislation stood in that way. The Con- 
 cord Railroad had their opportunity, as the Eastern and the Bos- 
 ton & Maine railroads had their opportunity ; and the Concord 
 Railroad, for a reason which is attempted to be glossed over and 
 apologized for, failed to take their opportunity. They failed in 
 making a business connection with the Boston, Concord & Mon- 
 treal and the Northern roads ; and various excuses have been made 
 for their failure. If they had had a common interest, if there 
 had been harmony of feeling, the legal technicality in the way 
 would have amounted to little. Everybody knows, as my friend 
 from Exeter has said, that a man will not quarrel with himself 
 or his own interest. If they were united, if their ideas came to- 
 gether, even if they could not get a union exactly legal, they 
 could get one that was sufficient in all respects for their action 
 and the conduct of their business. The truth is, the Concord Rail- 
 road were hard and exacting in their terms, and the Northern 
 and the Boston, Concord & Montreal would not comply, and so 
 the union failed. The Concord road lost their opportunity on 
 account of their greed, on account of their own hard-handedness 
 in the matter. They afterwards had another opportunity, and 
 they lost that in the same way, and by their own fault. The 
 Boston & Lowell Railroad, with this matter open as it was under 
 the law, — and a state of things existing such as I have stated, — 
 came here, as my friend from Weare, Mr. Branch, has said, at the 
 invitation of the Northern and the Boston, Concord & Montreal. 
 They had a perfect right to come. Is there a man within the 
 hearing of my voice who will say that under those circumstances 
 it was not fair and above board, and that the Boston & Lowell 
 road were not justified, so long as the other roads quarrelled 
 and would not unite, and they were invited to come into this 
 contract, that they should do it? I think the good faith of the 
 state of New Hampshire is, just here, involved in the transac- 
 tion. If the Concord Railroad had stood just where the Boston 
 & Lowell Railroad stands in regard to this matter, and had 
 come before this legislature, would you not have said, 14 The 
 legal defect shall not prevail in this matter. They wish to 
 
10 
 
 unite ; they have made their contracts ; they made satisfactory 
 arrangements. They wish to come together. Shall we not 
 allow it : shall we not unite them ? Shall we not remedy the 
 defects in the law, and let this Concord and these northern roads 
 come together?” Is there a man here who would not have said, 
 “That is right ; that is justice ; that is what ought to be done”? 
 Why, then, should we not deal out to the Boston & Lowell road 
 the same treatment we would have dealt out to the Concord 
 road under like circumstances? But it is objected, — they are a 
 “ foreign corporation.” I will come to that by and by. 
 
 Is there any reason why you should not confirm the leases of 
 those two roads, allow the law to be perfected, and the whole 
 matter to stand where the people on those two roads desire it to 
 stand? The Boston & Lowell have come in here in good faith, 
 have put their money and material in, have done good service 
 for the state and its people, have managed the roads up and 
 down these lines so that even the opponents of this measure all 
 say it was good service. It satisfied the people. They could not 
 make the least objection against it. We ought to concede it to 
 the wishes of the people, as well as in justice to the roads. I 
 can see no possible reason, on grounds of common justice, for 
 denying the confirmation of the leases. But, gentlemen, it is 
 objected that the lease is too long ; that it is a 99-year lease ; — 
 and it has been iterated and reiterated here that this lease ex- 
 tends beyond the time of your children and your children’s 
 children for two or three generations to come, and that on that 
 account it is a very dangerous thing to enter into ; that it is 
 dangerous for the state and for its people to pass over the pos- 
 session of these roads for so long a term. This is and has been 
 the stock in trade of my friend from Nashua. That is the talk 
 made to you by the gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Marston, whose 
 opinion on questions of law I am ready to endorse. I admit the 
 law that has been given to you, both by the gentleman from Man- 
 chester and the gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Marston ; but, gen- 
 tlemen, it has no application in this case. That is the difficulty 
 about it. It is always a good plan, when you undertake to talk 
 about a thing, to see what you are talking about, see what your 
 point of departure is. I think I can show you, gentlemen, so 
 that every man in this house will understand me, that their theory 
 
11 
 
 about this matter is entirely wrong. I hold in my hand a copy 
 of the lease of the Northern road, of their railroad property, 
 etc., to the Boston & Lowell Railroad. What is the char- 
 acter of this instrument? Gentlemen, it is a lease : it is not a 
 sale. The court have said that for certain purposes it is a sale 
 of the roads ; that is, it is so far a change in the condition of 
 the property of the roads that any dissenting stockholder may 
 take the value of his property and go his way with it. But 
 nevertheless, gentlemen, it is not a sale : it is a lease ; — and I 
 wish you to put your minds upon the points in regard to the 
 lease as if it were a lease of your farm, or a lease of your 
 buildings, or a lease of your store, and you will see at once the 
 difference between that kind of an instrument and an entire 
 sale of your property. 
 
 I find that there are numerous covenants in this lease. I find, 
 among other covenants, that the fourteenth is as follows : 
 “And the party of the second part also covenants and agrees 
 that in case of the breach of any of its covenants herein con- 
 tained, or in ease the estate hereby created and vested in it shall 
 be taken from it by legal proceedings of any kind, or in case of 
 default in payment herein provided to be made by the party of 
 the second part or any part thereof, for a period of thirty days 
 after the same is payable, then the party of the first part, its 
 successors and assigns, may enter upon and take full possession 
 of the premises herein demised, and all depots, shops, buildings, 
 tracks, rolling-stock, or other property added thereto, and re- 
 move said, lessee and all persons claiming under it from said 
 premises, and thereby determine the estate hereby granted, using 
 whatever force may be necessary for that purpose.” 
 
 Now, what is the state of this case? The gentleman from 
 Nashua has told you that railroads are public corporations. He 
 has told you that persons operating them are public trustees. I 
 admit it ; and, gentlemen, a good deal of talk — to stop in what 
 I was saying about this lease — a good deal of talk has been 
 made about vested rights. A great flourish was made bv 
 the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Sulloway, who came here 
 last night and talked long and loud on the subject of vested 
 rights, and gave, as he said, a pile of authorities that would 
 deluge anybody that should deny that doctrine. There is no 
 
12 
 
 doubt about that law, or what the gentleman from Exeter stated 
 here in regard to the subject of vested rights ; but the trouble 
 about it is, there is not anything vested except the right to exe- 
 cute a public trust so long as it is executed properly. That is 
 their difficulty. That is just where this whole thing hinges. Look 
 at it for a moment. Did you ever hear of an administrator who 
 had a vested right in the estate he was administering upon, so 
 that he, in defiance of his duties and obligations under the law, 
 could go on and do anything he pleased and not find himself 
 subject to removal? Did you ever hear of a trustee who held 
 any property in his hands, who had any other vested lights than 
 the right to conduct that property and control it and do with it 
 according to the conditions of his trust? 
 
 Well, now, these railroad companies are trustees. They are 
 discharging a public trust. They get their authority from the 
 state to run their railroads. They are common carriers engaged 
 in an undertaking almost purely public in its nature, and all 
 their acts must be in accord with their obligations as public 
 trustees. They are to do whatever common carriers ought to 
 do under that trust. They have no vested right to do anything 
 else. And the moment they cease to perform their public obli- 
 gations, they have forfeited their right to remain in the public 
 service. Just as an administrator may be turned out, just as a 
 trustee who disregards his duty to the estate may be turned out, 
 just so anybody who holds a railroad and undertakes to run it in 
 defiance of the law of the state can be turned out ; and the law, 
 as explained by the gentlemen referred to, has no application to 
 the case. I admit if under an act of incorporation two parties 
 make a contract one with the other, that a repeal of the act of 
 incorporation will not disturb the contract ; but I claim that when 
 the state charters a railroad, and allows that railroad to lease 
 itself, holding both to the performance of all the obligations of 
 the company originally chartered, it is simply saying to those 
 parties, “You can take this property, and so long as you per- 
 form your public duties, your duties to the state and to the 
 stockholders, and to every citizen that wants to come and go on 
 your road, so far as you observe every rule and obligation that 
 is incumbent on you, so long you may hold and operate your 
 road ; but a disregard of your duties will place you at the mercy 
 of the state and your lessor.” 
 
13 
 
 I call attention to the conditions of the lease in the tenth 
 article. The tenth article is as follows : “ It will, during the 
 
 term of this lease, operate said demised railroad according to 
 the requirements of law, fulfilling all the duties and obligations 
 of the party of the first part in relation thereto in the same man- 
 ner as if the said demised roads remained in the possession and 
 control of the party of the first part, and protect and save harm- 
 less the party of the first part against all actions or claims for 
 injuries to persons or property during said term by reason of 
 any want of repair of said road and property or appurtenances, 
 or any casualty of any kind, or any want of care and skill in 
 the management of the same, or by reason of any defect therein, 
 and will comply in all respects with the requirements of law in 
 the same manner as if it were the proprietor of said railroad 
 and property, and will not permit the party of the first part to 
 be subjected to any payment, penalty, or forfeiture for viola- 
 tion of law in any respect, and that at the expiration of or ear- 
 lier termination of this lease it will return said demised road 
 and property, with all equipments thereof, to the party of the 
 first part, in as good order and condition as the same now are, 
 without diminution or depreciation in any respect.” 
 
 Now, gentlemen, this lease is perfectly iron-clad. Do you 
 wish to shorten it and make it ten years, fifteen years, or thirty 
 years? If you know that for ninety-nine years every obligation 
 that is incumbent on this chartered road will be observed, do 
 you wish to cut the term down? What advantage is there in it? 
 Do you desire frequent contests in your legislatures, such as we 
 have had here during the present session ? What more is wanted 
 than that every obligation of this railroad, as it was originally 
 chartered, shall be fully taken care of and performed for the 
 whole ninety-nine years, and that the rental shall be paid and 
 other duties performed according to the terms of this lease? 
 Why, if we could insure for ninety-nine years as perfect a con- 
 dition of things in the railroads of New Hampshire as is con- 
 templated in this lease ; if we could know and insure that the 
 Boston & Maine Railroad and the Concord Railroad would take 
 care of every public obligation that rests upon them and per- 
 form every obligation to the stockholders as well as therein 
 stated and provided for, I should feel that we had accomplished 
 
14 
 
 something in this legislature worthy of its long session. If 
 that condition of things exists, is there any objection to its con- 
 tinuance for ninety-nine years? You see, gentlemen, if this 
 state of things is not preserved, if the covenants are not per- 
 formed, within thirty days from the time of their breach the 
 original company, the lessor, can step in, take this railroad away 
 from the parties that are operating it, and give it to others who 
 will serve the public and the stockholders properly. Is not that 
 the plainest thing in the world? Do you not know, gentlemen, 
 if you let your farm or your house to some one, and he violates 
 the conditions of the lease, that you have your right to enter at 
 once ? Does not every man in this house know that you can 
 take your property at once back into your hands, and do what 
 you please with it? You can put the lessee out on short notice 
 if he does not keep the written obligations he has made with 
 you. There are no vested rights that can prevent this. Such 
 is the contract the Boston & Lowell has or wishes to have with 
 the Northern, — and I suppose a similar lease was made with the 
 Boston, Concord & Montreal. If they do not observe the con- 
 ditions, the } 7 forfeit their rights. If the lessor, in case of a fail- 
 ure of the lessees to perform their duties, whether public or 
 private, has a right to enter for forfeiture of the lease, it would 
 certainly be reasonable to suppose the authority of the state 
 would be ample in the matter of a public trust to enforce per- 
 formance of the duties, or to depose the trustee, as the public 
 good might require. 
 
 There are reasons why a long lease is a good thing. I 
 will enumerate some of them. If there are repairs to be made 
 upon the road, if there is a double track to be laid, if there are 
 any permanent improvements to be made, the party making 
 them wants to know that he will be able to hold the property 
 and enjoy the rights and privileges for a considerable length of 
 time. He wants to know, if he puts a hundred thousand dol- 
 lars into your Boston, Concord & Montreal road or into your 
 Northern road, or five hundred thousand or a million dollars, or 
 whatever sum it may be, — he wants to know that he will not be 
 speedily deprived of its benefits ; that he will have the privilege, 
 if he performs his duty, of a long continued enjoyment of the 
 outlay. If you insist upon a ten years lease or a fifteen years 
 
15 
 
 lease, or even a thirty years lease, you order a condition of 
 things in the state that will prove ruinous to the railroads. It 
 seems certain to me. No one will be as likely to double track 
 the Northern road under such a state of things ; no one to build 
 new depots, and do all the other needed things, — put in all the 
 appliances, and maintain all the service that you want. If your 
 rights are well protected, as I think I have shown you they are, 
 why not allow these leases to be perfected? There is a remark- 
 able inconsistency displayed. It is claimed there is danger in a 
 lease of the Boston, Concord & Montreal Railroad for ninty-nine 
 years, but at the same time they propose the union of that road 
 with the Concord for all coming time. 
 
 There has been introduced from Cheshire county a bill which 
 passed this house, providing for the leasing and consolidation of 
 certain railroads. It involves every principle involved in this 
 lease, and not a breath has been raised against it. Is my 
 friend from Nashua so anxious to get a few votes from Ches- 
 hire county, and are my friends from Cheshire county so 
 anxious to sell themselves out for a consideration, that they 
 will allow such a bill to pass? Though they believe to the 
 contrary, though they are opposed to a ninety-nine years lease, — 
 my friend from Nashua shakes his head, — but when that matter 
 was brought up here not a breath was raised against it. When 
 one poses before this legislature as though he were a Glad- 
 stone, and talks about home rule he should at least make an 
 effort to be consistent. Ninety-nine years means the same 
 thing here as in Cheshire county. Consolidation and union with 
 and leasing to foreign corporations is the same there as here. If 
 our friends are governed by a principle, will they tell us what it 
 is, and whether it sometimes slumbers? We should not be influ- 
 enced by the action of any road towards any particular section 
 of the state, whether it be the town of Wliitefield or any other 
 place. We are here to “ bear faith and true allegiance to the 
 state of New Hampshire,” not to the town of Whitefield, or to 
 any town where you are going to have a little piece of railroad, 
 and somebody flourishes a bond in your face as a ground for 
 your action, and you come here and say, “ I have not changed 
 my general principles, but because my town is to be benefited a 
 little I will sell the rest of } 7 ou out.” [Applause.] 
 
16 
 
 Will the men of Cheshire county, who have secured the pas- 
 sage of their bill by the aid of its friends and the forbearance 
 of the friends of the Atherton bill, now by their votes deny to 
 the other parts of the state such legislation as they themselves 
 crave ? 
 
 Now, a few words specially as to the provisions of these two 
 bills. The Hazen bill, so-called, provides, in its first part, a 
 remedy for the defect of the law of 1883. This is the first and 
 main provision of the Hazen bill. The seventh section provides 
 that the law of 1883 and this law shall be construed as author- 
 izing the lease of these two upper roads to the Boston & 
 Lowell. The gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Bell, has declared 
 exactly my opinion on this matter, and that is, that it is simplv 
 declaratory. We are criticised by our friends of the Atherton 
 bill for putting that into the bill. Turn to their own bill, gen- 
 tlemen. They have done precisely the same thing : they have 
 done what they criticise us for doing. They have said, in the 
 latter part of the sixteenth section of the Atherton bill, “and 
 said act of 1883 is hereby declared as authorizing only the 
 leasing or the union of roads which physically connect. ” 
 And they have put it in for a purpose. They have provided * 
 that these upper roads shall not lease themselves to any road 
 except the Concord. That is the meaning of this provision. If 
 their bill becomes a law, the Boston, Concord & Montreal and the 
 Northern roads cannot lease themselves to any road except 
 the Concord, for that is the only road that physically connects 
 with them. It is simply putting the matter between two parties 
 who will attempt to make a contract here in regard to the rail- 
 road interests, so that one party will be at the mercy of the 
 other. What is your opinion of such a provision? If the legis- 
 lature should provide that you could not sell your farm to any- 
 body except your neighbor B, you would see the point ; you 
 would understand that kind of legislation ; you would have 
 your opinion as to its propriety. Some gentlemen have gone so 
 far as to say if these parties do not wish to unite their roads, 
 they will compel them to unite. Is there any such state of 
 things existing as requires that ? What is the public good which 
 requires that we should so treat the corporate property of these 
 stockholders ? Much has been said about the small stockholders 
 
17 
 
 of the Boston, Concord & Montreal, — and it has been tried 
 to awaken our sympathy for them. I should like to know what 
 treatment they would receive at the hands of the Concord Rail- 
 road if you should enact such legislation as that road pro- 
 poses. You have only to look at their former conduct to de- 
 termine. Did they exact hard terms of the Northern and the 
 Boston, Concord & Montreal roads? Did they undertake to 
 crowd and grind them ? Did they undertake to exact from them 
 conditions different from those which they had before agreed 
 to? And was it a grasping and grinding monopoly, or not? 
 
 Such is the spirit of this corporation ; and if you leave mat- 
 ters in a condition for them to exercise that spirit, you will find 
 it as relentless as ever. 
 
 I am in favor of the seventh section because I believe it will 
 have a tendency to prevent litigation. The eighth section con- 
 tains provisions as to connections of railroads, places the mat- 
 ter under the regulation of the commissioners, and provides for 
 an appeal to the supreme court. The gentleman from Exeter, 
 Mr. Bell, familiar with the circumstances, as I am not, has 
 delineated to you the condition of things at Manchester, and 
 clearly shown the necessity for the provisions, not for the ad- 
 vantage of one road alone, but for the advantage of all. 
 
 Section eleven reads as follows : “Railroad corporations cre- 
 ated by the laws of other states shall have all the rights and 
 privileges as regards connecting roads, under the preceding sec- 
 tions, as corporations created bv the state.” It supplements the 
 three preceding sections, and makes their provisions general. 
 
 The twelfth section of this act provides for a general en- 
 forcement of the orders and decrees of the railroad commis- 
 sioners. It strengthens the commissioner law, and gives greater 
 power in its execution. It certainly is not in favor of any mo- 
 nopoly. All these provisions are concessions to the people. I 
 am not in favor myself of any special act of legislation regard- 
 ing freights and fares, — that is, except some general provision 
 such as is put in this bill, that they shall not be increased over 
 what they are at a certain date. You never can tell, when you 
 make a special law, such as Mr. Todd’s two-cent bill, how it is 
 going to operate. The matter of freights and fares should be 
 left in the control of the railroad commissioners. Mv friend 
 2 
 
18 
 
 from Nashua, up to 1886, was the chairman of that board from 
 its inauguration, and I take it if any such provision as that 
 embodied in the Todd bill had been needed, if any such thing as 
 that ought to have been done, it would have been ordered by 
 the commissioners. 
 
 We cannot consider the subject in all its minutiae, in all its 
 bearings, and we are just as likely to get something that will 
 work against the public as to get something that will work in 
 their favor. 
 
 Such are the provisions of the Hazen bill. There is a pro- 
 vision restricting fares and freights to what they were August 
 1, 1887. That is general ; that applies everywhere, over all the 
 systems. Then, gentlemen, is this provision, that this act shall 
 always be under the control of the legislature to alter, amend, or 
 repeal, as the public good may require. My friend from Weare 
 gave you authorities on that subject, illustrating and enforcing 
 his view of the law. He has discussed the matter so fully and 
 thoroughly that it is entirely unnecessary for me to enter upon 
 that field. 
 
 Let us turn to the Atherton bill. That provides in the first 
 place for this marriage, this union forever, of the Boston, Con- 
 cord & Montreal road with the Concord road. Is there a man 
 in this house that does not believe there is at the present time 
 in the hands of the Concord road a large surplus that belongs 
 to the state? Who has denied it? Who from the Concord Rail- 
 road has come here and undertaken to deny that proposition, ex- 
 cept in the most general manner? They have referred you to the 
 figuring of Mr. Barnard in 1883 on that subject. I have here 
 the act of incorporation of the Concord Railroad. That whole 
 figuring treats the question just as though the stockholders of 
 the Concord Railroad are to receive ten per cent, dividend, or 
 it is to be made up by the state whenever they take the road. 
 The provisions of that law do not say any such thing. That 
 figuring is made up in this way : it takes what the stockholders 
 of the Concord Railroad have received year by year, adds 
 enough to that to make ten per cent., and figures interest there- 
 on. I do not think they are entitled to interest. I do not think 
 the Concord road can hold the property of their stockholders 
 in their possession, and charge the state interest thereon. 
 
19 
 
 Now this section of the act incorporating the Concord Rail- 
 road says, “ That the state at any time during the charter of 
 the Concord Railroad Corporation, at the expiration of twenty 
 years from the time of the completion of said road, may pur- 
 chase the same of said corporation, and all the franchise, 
 rights, and privileges of said corporation, by paying them there- 
 for the amount expended in making said road ; and in case, 
 at the time of said purchase, they saicl corporation shall not have 
 received a net income equal to twelve per cent, per annum on 
 the amount of such expenditure from the time of the payment 
 thereof by the stockholders, by paying said corporation such 
 additional sum as together with the tolls and profits of every 
 kind which they shall have received from said railroad, will be 
 equal to a net profit of ten per cent.” 
 
 If the corporation have received twelve per cent, annually dur- 
 ing that time, no matter what they have done with it, no matter 
 if the stockholders have not got it, — if the corporation have re- 
 ceived it, then the state could take the road by paying therefor 
 the amount expended in making said road. Is there a man with- 
 in the sound of mv voice who believes that this corporation has 
 not had a net income of twelve per cent, per annum on an aver- 
 age from the time they were incorporated up to the present time? 
 
 The question is, Have the corporation earned year by year on 
 an average twelve per cent, net? — and if they have that is an end 
 of the matter. You have heard of the offer of $500,000 already 
 made. [Applause.] It is time the question was acted upon and 
 dropped out of the halls of legislation. One of our opponents 
 says this surplus amounts to $2,000,000. This would go a good 
 ways towards paying the state debt. Gentlemen, here is some- 
 thing for you to consider. Are you going to pass any act or 
 do any legislation that will by any possible interpretation be 
 considered by the citizens of your various towns as voting away 
 to any party $2,000,000 that belongs to the state? 
 
 But I started to say that the provisions of this Atherton bill 
 were made for the purpose of diverting this surplus and taking 
 it out of the reach of recovery, and I will tell you how it is 
 going to be done. I did not understand it fully until my friend 
 from Laconia made his speech, and said “ this plum of the 
 Concord Railroad is what we are after.” That has been talked 
 
20 
 
 about and put down by this house as a dead give-away upon 
 this whole subject. They are after that. Who is after it? It 
 is a syndicate that is after it, gentlemen. Of course no syndi- 
 cate can ever have anything for itself without conferring some 
 benefit on somebod}^ else. I suppose there are small stockhold- 
 ers that may, when the syndicate are getting this bonanza, real- 
 ize some benefit from it, but that is merely a matter by the 
 way, and when my friend came in here and talked about 
 marrying these roads, I understood full well what he meant. 
 It was that the stock of the Boston, Concord & Montreal 
 should be fused with the stock of the Concord Railroad, so 
 that these poor shares of the B. C. & M. may be permeated 
 with this surplus fund, which, like blood, will run through them. 
 That is the effect, gentlemen. The market value will be raised. 
 My friends of the Concord Railroad are not anxious to fuse 
 themselves with this Northern Railroad. They prefer to be left 
 alone just as they are. They would prefer to enjoy the surplus 
 just as they have done ; but if they cannot do that, then, as the 
 next best thing, they wish to fuse these two railroads, and then 
 you will wake up some fine morning and find that some other 
 railroad has got those shares. That is what is going to hap- 
 pen. That is what they design to do ; they mean to realize this 
 surplus and put it into their pockets. That is the whole scheme. 
 You may put any provision that you please into the bill, that 
 the state may hereafter call upon the Concord Railroad for its 
 surplus, but it will be of no avail. It will have gone beyond 
 your reach. 
 
 Again : It is said we are by this bill surrendering to foreign 
 corporations the control of our railroads. There never was a 
 greater absurdity. There cannot be found one single case, one 
 single opinion, one single line of law in any opinion, in any de- 
 cision of court, in any book of law, to substantiate such a posi- 
 tion as that. Look at it a moment. What power, I ask you, 
 has this legislature, or any other legislature, to take from the 
 state of New Hampshire its authority as a state and turn it 
 over to Massachusetts or any foreign corporation ? Do you be- 
 lieve if you should attempt to do such a thing it would be 
 worth the paper it should be written on ? You need not trouble 
 yourselves about this bill, if that is all there is to it. You need 
 
21 
 
 not be concerned about its holding ninety-nine years, if it un- 
 dertakes to surrender the authority of the state to outside par- 
 ties. And you cannot get that question to the supreme court 
 of the United States. You know the constitution of the United 
 States is a document of powers delegated by the states to the 
 United States. Now there is no provision in that constitution 
 that allows any question between the state of New Hampshire 
 and any citizen of another state to go to the supreme court. 
 State sovereignty, state authority within its jurisdiction, is as 
 absolute as any power on earth can be. 
 
 [At this point the house adjourned to 7:30 p. m., when Mr. 
 Colby concluded his speech.] . 
 
 Mr. Speaker : I desire to mention one or two matters that in 
 running hastily over, and without anything except mere points 
 noted, I have omitted. If you should pass the Atherton bill, 
 of course that would determine that the public good required 
 the taking of the lease of the Boston, Concord & Montreal 
 road and passing it over to the Concord road under the 
 idea of eminent domain, or the right to take property when 
 the interests of the state demand it. It has been alluded to 
 here by the gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Bell, and the idea ad- 
 vanced that the state had the right to take the railroads into its 
 control, and either run them itself or put them into the hands 
 of a trustee, or manage them in some other way, like the postal 
 service, or any other public matter. The state simply entrusts 
 the service to certain bauds under an act of incorporation, or in 
 some other form, with the right always to resume it at any mo- 
 ment. Generally speaking, when we pass acts of incorporation, 
 we say, “This act is subject to be amended, modified, or re- 
 pealed whenever the public good may require it.” As I said 
 in my talk about the ninety-nine years lease, everybody under- 
 stands, and all legislation recognizes the fact, that so long as 
 the public good does not require any extraordinary thing of 
 that kind to be done, the state has discretion enough not to 
 exercise the right ; — just so in the matter of leasing railroads : 
 the control of the state is always full and complete. The good 
 sense of any one will say to him that the state ought not to in- 
 terfere when parties doing the duty or exercising the right are 
 
22 
 
 doing it in accord with the public good, and so as to meet the 
 demands of the state. 
 
 Now this Atherton bill, in my judgment, proposes an extra- 
 ordinary proceeding. I do not think, and I do not believe 
 you will think, gentlemen of the house, that the public good re- 
 quires at the present time the violent taking of the property or 
 right in this lease of the Boston & Lowell corporation. Every ex- 
 pression, from whatever source I have heard it, has been that the 
 train service, the public service all along these northern lines, 
 has been perfect. The people say, we want no better. They 
 say to the Boston & Lowell, “You have done everything for us 
 that we could ask ; we are delighted with the manner in which 
 you have served us, and we wish a continuance of the service 
 as it has been.” I think it will commend itself to your good 
 sense that the public good does not require the exercise of so 
 extraordinary a power as that of taking the lease from the 
 hands of the Boston & Lowell and passing it into the hands of 
 another corporation, simply for the purpose of enriching or 
 aggrandizing that corporation. 
 
 The leasing of a railroad does not change its character or its 
 duties ; it stands just as it did before ; the same liabilities 
 which the law imposed upon it remain ; and whoever takes it 
 must fulfil its duties, public and private. 
 
 All the obligations of the common law or statute law of any 
 and every kind which were upon the lessor as a common carrier, 
 fall upon the lessee, and the lessee must fulfil these duties, or 
 violate its obligation and forfeit its rights to hold and manage 
 the property. And the lessor or the state can resume it on 
 that ground at any moment. 
 
 Again : When a corporation leases itself to another corporation, 
 as the Northern Railroad has to the Boston & Lowell, there are 
 numerous authorities to the effect that the lessor corporation, 
 in any case of accident through negligence, or in any case of 
 non-fulfilment of obligation assumed by the lessee, is liable 
 and may be sued. There is a covenant in the lease in ques- 
 tion which looks to just the state of things I have now de- 
 scribed. That is, there is a covenant on the part of the lessee 
 that in case of any accident, in case of any negligence, in case 
 of default bv the lessee corporation, they will protect the 
 
28 
 
 lessor corporation from all damages and suits in regard to it. 
 That covenant was made, not for the purposes of the argument 
 that I am making, but because shrewd lawyers, in drawing up 
 that lease, recognized the law as I have stated it, — that the lo- 
 cal corporation might be sued in case of default or negligence, 
 because it is incumbent on them by virtue of their act of incor- 
 poration, accepted by them from the state, to see that the rail- 
 road was run according to law ; that is, that no negligence 
 should ever cause injury to passengers, no default should be 
 made in their duties as common carriers. The state placed that 
 burden upon them, and that burden remains upon them. There 
 are numerous cases to the effect that such is the law unless 
 there is special provision in the legislation relieving them of this 
 burden ; and nothing of that kind is to be found in this lease or 
 in any action on the part of the state. If the party who takes 
 the railroad takes it by virtue of a mortgage, or takes it by 
 virtue of a receivership or by operation of law, the matter 
 stands differently. I am speaking about the matter as between 
 the lessor and lessee. 
 
 The transfer, or attempt by the railroads to transfer, cases to 
 the United States court in this jurisdiction has not been frequent, 
 so far as my observation extends. I do not think it would be of 
 advantage to them to take such a course. For many years a foreign 
 corporation has run the Sullivan County Railroad, and we have 
 found no trouble in that or any other direction, and I apprehend 
 none. My friend from Tilton has given you a pathetic account of 
 the fortunes of his father, and asks that in his old age he may 
 through your action derive some benefit from his stock in the 
 B. C. & M. Many men have lost all they put in. They never expect 
 to get it back, and they never will. We have suffered in man}? 
 parts of the state in this manner. We are sorry ; we would have 
 liked to have it otherwise ; but is that any proper ground on 
 which the legislature of New Hampshire shall determine a great 
 question of state interest? Why, I should prefer to vote to 
 those men who suffered in that way a free gift out of the treasury 
 of the state, rather than violate a principle which I believe lies 
 at the foundation of our prosperity. 
 
 A word as to the Canadian Pacific. I understood Gen. 
 Marston to say that the Canadian Pacific was a terrible institu- 
 
24 
 
 tion, and that in some way or other it was going to work a ter- 
 rible injustice and harm to New Hampshire. When gentlemen 
 come before you with that sort of an argument, you must think 
 that they either regard you as not quite up to the mark, or else 
 they have uttered in the hurry of debate something they did 
 not quite mean to say, as men often do when on their feet talk- 
 ing extemporaneously. 
 
 I have always labored under the idea that it was a benefit to 
 the state of New Hampshire, or to any other state, to have com- 
 munication with the rest of the world. I have thought that 
 commerce with the Canadian territory, commerce with England, 
 commerce with China, commerce with Mexico and the South 
 American states, was something to be hoped for and encouraged. 
 Am I mistaken? Am I talking to a legislature in the midst of 
 the nineteenth century? or have I gone back a hundred years, 
 when communities had not our present facilities and lived al- 
 most entirely by themselves? You have now, by virtue of rail- 
 roads and ship communication, your fruits from the South in 
 their season. You have from over the water, from the Med- 
 iterranean, oranges and the various fruits there growing ; 
 you have your tea from China, and your silks from some other 
 parts of the world. In this age we live in a different wa\’ from 
 what they did one hundred years ago. Do you wish to deprive 
 yourselves of these advantages? Do you wish to shut out com- 
 munication by means of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, and by 
 all other means of communication with the outside world? That 
 is the logic of the gentleman’s argument. But he knew the ab- 
 surdity of that position, and so at last he said, “Why, I am 
 willing they should bring here whatsoever they have a mind to 
 bring, but I do not want them to undertake to get in here and 
 control our affairs ; and I do not want the Boston & Maine 
 Railroad, for the consideration of $3,000,000 or any other sum, 
 to turn their system of railroads over to the Canadian Pacific.” 
 
 Is there any danger of it? Is there not a provision in the 
 Hazen bill that these roads shall not be leased by the Canadian 
 Pacific? Haven’t we made that in the Hazen bill as strong as 
 possible ? and have n’t they got to come to the legislature of 
 New Hampshire in order to get this provision reversed ? Besides, 
 I have not so much fear of foreign corporations as the gentle- 
 
25 
 
 man seems to have. I expectin a hundred years from this time, 
 when the Western country shall have been overflowed, when im- 
 migration has filled up those great states to repletion, that it 
 will drift out over the Canadian lands, and perhaps by and by, 
 through that means and the inter-communication fostered by 
 these very railroads, the territory of the United States of Amer- 
 ica will be extended to the northern waters. I believe that in- 
 stead of being captured by the Canadian Pacific or by Canada, 
 they are much more likely to be taken by us, and to come to us 
 and form a part of our system. There is no danger from that 
 source ; and if there were danger, we have given you the best 
 possible guard against it. What more can you ask at our 
 hands in the Hazen bill? Mr. Bell told you, very pertinently, 
 that he was in favor of the Hazen bill because the Boston 
 & Maine, united with these upper roads, would make a strong 
 resisting force against any attempt at invasion. It would be a 
 force that would command the respect of the Canadian Pacific, 
 or any other road with which it should come in contact. Is not 
 that so? Is not that the true argument? If you wish to pro- 
 vide for resistance, can you not get it from the Boston & Maine 
 better than to leave these upper roads alone, or even better than 
 to let the Concord road unite with them? But, gentlemen, I am 
 talking too long in regard to these matters. 
 
 I wish to say a word about the matter of competition. It has 
 been displayed and commended to us as a means of preserv- 
 ing all the rights of the people of New Hampshire in the best 
 possible manner. Let us look at that for a moment. I desire 
 to read to you from Charles Francis Adams on the subject of 
 railroads, an eminent authority, and one whose opinions are 
 entitled to the greatest weight. On the 80 th page of “The 
 Railroad Problem,” he says, — 
 
 During the last ten years there has been so much vague discussion of 
 what is commonly known as the railroad problem, that many people, and 
 those by no means the least sensible, have begun gravely to doubt whether 
 after all it is not a mere cant phrase, and whether any such problem does 
 indeed exist. Certainly the discussion has not been remarkable for in- 
 telligence, and the currency question itself has hardly been more com- 
 pletely befogged in clouds of indifferent declamation, poor philosophy, 
 and worse logic. No fallacy has been too thin to pass current in it, and 
 the absolute power which certain words and phrases have held over the 
 
26 
 
 public mind has throughout seemed to set both argument and patience at 
 defiance. 
 
 I ask you, gentlemen, to apply these remarks of Charles 
 Francis Adams to the constant cry of 44 monopoly,” 44 stock- 
 jobbers,’’ 44 invaders,” 44 robbers,” that we have so often heard 
 here — and for what purpose? Is it not to excite your preju- 
 dices? Is that calm, dispassionate reasoning? or, is it an en- 
 deavor to warp your minds and excite your prejudices by such 
 words and phrases as Charles Francis Adams has here de- 
 scribed? Then, on page 117, he says, in regard to this matter 
 of competition, — 
 
 To one now looking back and reviewing the whole course of events, 
 cause and effect become apparent. Things could not have taken any 
 course other than that which they did take : the logic has been inexora- 
 ble. The whole theory under which the railroad system was left to de- 
 velop itself was founded on a theoretical error ; and it was none the less 
 an error because, even if it had been recognized as such, it could not 
 have been remedied. That error lay in the supposition, then universally 
 accepted as an axiom, that in all matters of trade, competition, if allowed 
 perfectly free play, could be relied upon to protect the community from 
 abuses. The efficacy of railroad competition, expressing itself in the 
 form of general laws authorizing the freest possible railroad construction 
 everywhere and by any one, at an early day became almost a cardinal 
 principle of American faith. 
 
 A gentleman from Nashua the other day advocated competi- 
 tion. Gentlemen from Manchester have advocated it ; they 
 have said, in substance, that they have two railroads, and they 
 wish to preserve them and enjoy the blessings of competition. 
 Well, they had competition in the eastern part of the state be- 
 tween the Eastern Railroad and the Boston & Maine, and in the 
 end they did not find it very useful. It helped create their 
 enormous debts, helped ruin the Eastern Railroad, and was the 
 thing that has taken out of the pockets of the people large sums 
 of money in the eastern part of the state. And now, gentle- 
 men, it has resulted in combination, which is always the case. 
 
 Did it ever occur to you that we, here in New Hampshire, 
 cannot every man of us have two railroads run to his door? 
 You, up in the northern part of the state, in every town, are 
 
27 
 
 you going to have two railroads, so that you can have competi- 
 tion at every point? That is a state of things which you can 
 see would be absurd to expect. I am willing the city of Nashua 
 should have equal privileges as to competition with the rest of 
 us, and the city of Manchester likewise. But, gentlemen from 
 Coos, Grafton, Strafford, and Rockingham, or any other part 
 of the state, I do not desire, and I think you will not desire, 
 that the city of Nashua should have competition there such as 
 would lower the rates, and in the war of railroads get them 
 down below the normal point, because, — mark me, gentlemen, — 
 what the city of Nashua or the city of Manchester gains in that 
 regard you will have to make up. 
 
 This matter of competition is an insidious power, and it is 
 followed by combination which raises rates, or it is followed by 
 discriminations and secret rates and everything of that sort, 
 which have been injurious to the people and ruinous to the 
 railroads of this country. 
 
 The gentleman from Nashua told you in his speech the other 
 day that there were three methods in railroading. One was 
 governmental control ; another, letting them control themselves, 
 or do what they pleased ; and another was treating them as 
 trustees, the state being the supervisory trustee, — and that he 
 favored the latter method. I am in accord with him on that 
 subject. What I wish to see in New Hampshire is a board of 
 railroad commissioners with strength enough to make the rail- 
 roads of New Hampshire serve me and carry for me, though 
 poor and humble, just as well and at the same rates as for the 
 man who counts his millions. I wish them to understand that 
 there must be equality, and that everybody must be served 
 alike ; that freights and fares must be free from discrimina- 
 tion throughout the state. This matter of competition can- 
 not in these railroad matters be sufficiently general to realize 
 any good from it. The points where any good is obtained 
 are few, and it works to the destruction and embarrassment 
 of the rest. You can have proper freights and fares on your 
 railroads only by having governmental control through your 
 railroad commissioners in such way as I have described. 
 
 The next point I wish to consider is the physical connection 
 of railroads. I will spend but a moment on that. I need only 
 
28 
 
 refer you to the fact that the Boston, Concord & Montreal and 
 the Northern have been run by the Boston & Lowell three or 
 four years, and they are not physically connected. If there 
 has been any trouble, I have not heard of it. I live at 
 Claremont, on one line of that railroad. I think I know how the 
 train service has been. There has been no trouble ; the people 
 are satisfied. And I will say here, lest I forget it, it is possible 
 you may think there is something to this talk about legislating 
 the Concord Railroad out of existence. The idea is absurd. 
 The Concord Railroad has existed and prospered ; their train 
 service and all their rights have been protected while these roads 
 above and below have been running under the leases. The ar- 
 gument as to physical connection does not amount to anything. 
 Talk about the upper roads and the Boston & Lowell road 
 crushing the Concord road is mere talk. They cannot crush 
 it any more than your farm could be crushed if it lay in the 
 midst of 10,000 acres belonging to some other man. The law 
 of the state would preserve your rights to the farm as perfectly 
 in all respects as though you owned the 10,000 acres and not 
 the little farm of forty acres. These are arguments addressed 
 to fear and prejudice, and not to reason. 
 
 Now, as to the Atherton bill : it has a delusive title. As it 
 came into this house it was called “An act to secure to the 
 state of New Hampshire the control of its railroads,” — just as 
 though New Hampshire had not had the control of its railroads, 
 and it remained for the gentleman from Nashua to save them to 
 the state ! The bill went into committee, and its friends thought 
 it not quite sugar-coated enough, so they added this, “ to 
 carry into effect the true intent of the general railroad legisla- 
 tion of 1883.” This was the name they gave it, but the name 
 does not indicate its character. Everybody knows that the 
 Atherton bill, instead of perfecting the law of 1883, reverses 
 that legislation ; that it is a return to the system of special leg- 
 islation which for forty years had characterized the state. The 
 bill provides that they may do a great many things ; but if they 
 do not do them, the only chance anybody has got is to go into 
 court and see what the court say about the intention of this 
 act. It is provided that it shall be the privilege of any man, if, 
 after a certain length of time, they do not perform the things 
 
29 
 
 mentioned, to get them into court and have the court say what 
 this act means. I thought it would be a delightful thing for 
 these weak roads, or anybody interested in the upper country, 
 to get John H. Pearson into court. I think they would have a 
 good time before they got out. 
 
 I desire to say something about the consolidation of railroads. 
 Consolidation of railroads is a matter, I believe, in which we 
 all agree — our friends of the Atherton bill, I think, with a men- 
 tal reservation. I thought in 1883 we were adopting the princi- 
 ple of consolidation. I think a good many thought so. Judge 
 Cross, in some of the remarks he made at that time, said that 
 thirt 3 7 -five states of the Union had adopted this policy. Now it 
 is a good way to interpret a matter by looking at what those 
 states have done. I venture to say that you cannot find any 
 number of those states which have adopted the kind of consoli- 
 dation which is recommended to us here — that is, consolidation 
 that stops at state lines. Judge Cross, in his illustrations in 
 regard to the matter, enumerated a great many railroads that 
 had been consolidated. In 1883 he said that the legislature has 
 the absolute and entire control of all railroads in the state, 
 whether separate or consolidated. How is it in the other 
 states ? Have they suffered from consolidation ? That is the way 
 he put the matter then. You remember how he put it in his ar- 
 gument before the committee during this session of the legisla- 
 ture. 
 
 Consolidation is right in principle. I do not think you wish 
 to chop off our roads at the state line. One gentleman — I think 
 it was my friend, Mr. Atherton — said that the ultimate outcome 
 will be a line of railroad from upper Coos to the sea. I think 
 that is in the current of coming events, to happen, not by crush- 
 ing the Concord Railroad, but by allowing her to make such 
 business connections or consolidations with these other roads as 
 shall accomplish what the state desires. The Boston & Maine 
 Railroad have not taken the terminals of the Boston & Lowell 
 and leased the Boston & Lowell without a reason ; they have 
 not given the Boston & Lowell what they have covenanted to 
 give on their stock without a reason ; and that reason is found 
 in part in the advantages of the terminals of the Boston & 
 Lowell Railroad. They see, if some of the gentlemen on the 
 
80 
 
 floor of this house do not, that this country is progressing, that 
 these terminals are becoming and will become very important. 
 Look back upon the history of the country during the past fifty 
 years : no flight of fancy has equalled the reality of what has 
 taken place. The course and growth of our empire have been 
 astonishing. Within fifty years the railroad, the telegraph, and 
 other inventions which contribute to the benefit and the enlarge- 
 ment of affairs, have changed the whole course of business. 
 These gentlemen of the Boston & Maine Railroad are alive to 
 the condition of things. They have seen that in the near future 
 commerce is going to make these terminals of great conse- 
 quence. Shall we fail to enjoy, along with them, the benefits 
 they offer? It is vital to the interests of New Hampshire that 
 she should have the lowest freight and fares ; that she should 
 have every resource possible in this direction. We must be 
 equals in the race, or our state will be left out of the track of 
 progress. You cannot expect to compete with the prairies of 
 the west in raising corn. You must bring your grains from the 
 great north-west down over these roads. You must bring your 
 merchandise from Boston up along these lines. The thing for 
 New Hampshire to do is to develop her water-power, develop 
 her manufactories. And it is a matter of the finest calculation 
 on freights and fares. It is a matter vital to these manufacto- 
 ries whether they can save a few mills on a yard of cotton or on 
 a pound of freight, or not. We are back here among the hills ; 
 and if your manufactories along the rivers in these valleys are 
 going to compete with those near tide water and the great mar- 
 kets, you must have the lowest freights and fares. Men come 
 here and indulge in fiery harangues against your manufactories 
 and your railroads. Why do you not tear up your railroads 
 and tear down your mills/ and blast them and the whole land 
 with fire, abate them as nuisances? That is the logic of some 
 speeches we have heard here. I am exasperated, as a citi- 
 zen of New Hampshire, when I hear that kind of talk. If 
 you love your native state you will not allow that sort of spirit 
 to control. I am in favor of controlling these things. I agree 
 with the gentleman from Nashua, that railroads should be con- 
 trolled. Make them your business servants; control your 
 Amoskeag corporation, and make it do what it ought to do. 
 
81 
 
 But hold back the spirit of destruction ; avoid social anarchy. 
 Let us have prosperity rather than desolation. [Applause.] I 
 am not talking for any railroad : I am not their attorney : I 
 never was in mv life. I do not come here under any influence 
 of that kind. I am talking for the interests of New Hampshire 
 as I understand them. I would gladly have avoided this ques- 
 tion. But I am in it ; I have got to act upon it as one of you ; 
 and so far as I am concerned you shall know what I think. 
 
 To relieve the situation, I will read what our friend Sulloway 
 says in a part of his argument in 1883 on this subject of con- 
 solidation. I do not mean any disrespect to my friend from 
 Manchester, who has gone away, but I presume he will know 
 what I have said. He said the other night he had not read my 
 speech. I would advise the gentleman, if he intends to answer 
 my speech in any particular, to read it before he undertakes 
 to answer it, and he will get nearer the truth, and make a better 
 argument. [Applause.] 
 
 Now, gentlemen, this brings me to another particular in which this 
 Colby bill has been attacked, and that is the leasing of railroads ; and 
 gentlemen come in here as if it were something new. They ,come in 
 here and stand up and inflate their lungs, and they talk about consolida- 
 tion. Gentlemen, they are aware that there is a prejudice in New Hamp- 
 shire against what is called consolidation. The same class of people are 
 afraid of consolidation that are afraid of ghosts ; it is they who have 
 never seen ghosts that are afraid of them ; they are not familiar with 
 ghosts ; they never happened to meet a ghost ; they are entirely unac- 
 quainted with ghosts ; and consequently they are afraid of a ghost. Now 
 whenever you find a man who is scared at consolidation, or what is here 
 called consolidation, he is a man who knows nothing of the practical 
 working operations and savings to the people by the union of roads. 
 
 There have been references made during the debate to the 
 reports of the railroad commissioners of New Hampshire. I 
 desire to read a little. The Boston & Maine have been pictured 
 to you as a horrible creature, and I was struck after all with 
 the fact that during the forty years that the Boston & Maine 
 have operated their roads so little could be said against their man- 
 agement. But they say they are terrible people, and that they 
 will rob you of your liberty. I want to read to you what the 
 railroad commissioners in 1886 said about this matter. And 
 
32 
 
 this is signed by the gentleman from Nashua with the other 
 railroad commissioners. He says, — 
 
 The decisions of this board have principally been decisions of equity. 
 Not one has met with contention on the part of the public or of the rail- 
 roads. The greater number of decisions has been adverse to the rail- 
 roads, and the decisions have been accepted in good faith. While the 
 time has not yet arrived for the principle of equity to dominate in all 
 human affairs, it is making rapid advance. A railroad commission is a 
 court of equity. It has few formulas. It is bound by no line of prece- 
 dents. It is hedged with no intricacies. It has no costly machinery. 
 It is subject to none of the laws of delay. It is a plain, open, and inex- 
 pensive court of arbitration between railroads and their patrons. Every 
 complaint, however trifling, has been heard and decided upon the law 
 and the equities, wherever the board has had jurisdiction. Not all have 
 called for hearings, because their mere calling attention to a complaint 
 has often been sufficient to secure an immediate remedy. This explains 
 the less number of public hearings than would otherwise be the case. It 
 is a matter for congratulation that complaints have not been more fre- 
 quent. 
 
 Now if the Boston & Maine is a monster that defies your law, 
 that undertakes to trample upon your rights, that would grind 
 to powder the people along its line, how is it possible that this 
 board of railroad commissioners, of which my friend from 
 Nashua was a member, could write such a report? I honor 
 him for the execution of his trust. I presume he stated the 
 exact truth upon his conscience. He says that these railroads, 
 on the very intimation that something was needed to be done, 
 have done it, and the decision, made in equity and not in law, 
 has been accepted with the utmost good faith. How does that 
 comport with the talk about stock-jobbers, robbers, and in- 
 vaders? Are these enterprising railroad managers what some 
 people would represent them to be, or are they executing a great 
 trust and doing their duty to the state and its citizens? I will 
 leave it for you to judge. Why, you could hardly expect so 
 enormous a property to go along from year to year without 
 some jostling, without some complaint. Take into considera- 
 tion that fact, and also take into consideration the report of 
 your railroad commissioners, not made at a time when the 
 blood might be a little heated, but in the coolness of the hour 
 
33 
 
 when they were writing their report under their oath, honestly 
 trying to tell the truth, and what shall the verdict be? 
 
 A word as to the matter of inter-state commerce. The senate 
 committee, headed by Senator Cullom, made an examination, as 
 the gentleman from Exeter told you. The matter was debated 
 in congress for a long while, and it culminated in this commis- 
 sion. They made a wide inquiry, and they have made a law 
 which he thinks is wise and just. I thank the gentleman for 
 the admission that it is a wise and just law. Its purpose is in 
 the direct line of what I have been talking to you ; that is, of 
 the legislative control of the railroads. The inter-state com- 
 merce commission is a system like your New Hampshire board 
 of railroad commissioners, and under their hand is opening 
 up — perhaps in a somewhat crude way at first — a great advance 
 in railroad legislation in the United States. I want to read a 
 little to you from Senator Cullom’s report, one of the ablest 
 reports that I ever had the pleasure of perusing, written thor- 
 oughly in the interest of the people, and designed to bring them 
 the rights and benefits they ought to enjoy under their railroad 
 system. I wish to broaden you out, as Gen. Marston says. I 
 like to be broadened out myself ; get a little wider view if I can. 
 This committee say, — 
 
 The present century has witnessed the introduction of new forces in 
 every department of civilized life, and none have brought about more 
 marvellous changes than has the railroad as an aid to and an instrument- 
 ality of commerce. The commercial, social, and political relations of the 
 nations have been revolutionized almost within the last fifty years by the 
 development of improved means of communication and transportation. 
 Previous to that period each nation lived almost wholly within itself. 
 There was little intercommunication, and exchanges of products were 
 limited to an extent that can to-day scarcely be realized. The commerce 
 of the world was for centuries conducted almost exclusively upon the sea, 
 and its proportions were insignificant in comparison with the foreign 
 trade of any leading nation to-day. By the construction of turnpikes 
 and canals and the development of river navigation, international trade 
 gradually began to grow up ; but barriers existed at every frontier ; the 
 transmission of intelligence was uncertain and expensive ; through routes 
 were almost unknown ; long distance transportation was impossible, ex- 
 cept by water, and there was actually but little communication or trading 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 between different nations or even between distant parts of the same 
 country. * * * 
 
 But still more marvellous have been the changes brought about in the 
 commercial, political, and social relations of nations, communities, and 
 individuals by the improved facilities for transportation .and intercourse 
 afforded by the railroad, all within the present century, and mainly within 
 the last thirty-five years. Indeed, the changes which have been alluded 
 to have consolidated independent communities and sovereign states into 
 nations, and their tendency has been in the direction of concentration and 
 consolidation in political organization as well as in every form of commer- 
 cial enterprise, industry, and production. * * * 
 
 Governor Horatio Seymour says, — “ The chief element in the prosperity 
 of every state or nation is the economy of transportation of persons and 
 property. It is the marked fact in the difference between civilization and 
 barbarism.” In the settlement of this country the “star of empire” 
 closely followed in its continuous westward march the lines of the great 
 internal water-courses, the first available means of inter-communication. 
 The advancing tide of civilization swept by and around vast regions re- 
 mote from the great rivers, regions in which prosperous states have since 
 grown up ; and it may be said of large portions of our imperial Western 
 domain, which owa their development to the building of railroads, that 
 the invention of the locomotive by George Stephenson in 1830 marked 
 the beginning of “ the difference between civilization and barbarism.” 
 The railroad, as an improved means of communication and transportation, 
 has produced indescribable changes in all the manifold transactions of 
 every-day life which go to make up what is called commerce. 
 
 I have read this that you may see at a glance the importance 
 of our vast railroad system, that you ma} 7 see in your mind’s 
 eye the bands which help bind us together and make us one 
 country. I fear we should have fallen asunder in the time of 
 the great civil war had it not been for the consolidating force of 
 these lines of railway. Great corporations are a necessity of 
 the times. No man or mere association of men can accomplish 
 the enormous tasks which the civilization of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury demands. The enormous growth and glory of the great 
 West is largely due to the railways of the country. You cannot 
 get along without them ; you cannot do what is required to be 
 done at this age of the world without these great corporations. 
 Therefore I am not in favor of hostility towards them. I am 
 not in favor of tearing up their rails, any more than I am in 
 favor of tearing down your manufactories, or stopping your mill 
 
wheels, or putting out the fires of your flaming forges. I am in 
 favor of giving them every needed opportunity for progress. 
 At the same time, I am in favor of inaugurating such legislation 
 as shall control them. The interstate commerce legislation 
 marks an era in the path of progress. But do the interstate 
 commerce committee anywhere in their report recommend such 
 legislation as has been urged by our friends of the Atherton 
 bill? Do they suggest state systems, or demarcation at state 
 boundaries? No such scheme has been suggested except in the 
 legislature of New Hampshire, so far as my information and 
 knowledge extend. 
 
 It is the easier and better way to leave railroads to make 
 their business connections as business interests may determine, 
 but at the same time to make them observe their duties to the 
 state and to the public. That is the true path upon which we 
 ought to travel. 
 
 There is one thing you have to learn, if you have not already 
 learned it, and that is, it is barren of good results to vote 
 against a natural law or the inevitable tendency of events. 
 You throw away your efforts. Keep your efforts in the right 
 direction, and on the line of useful control. 
 
 This brings me to another consideration. From the begin- 
 ning some gentlemen have endeavored to make this a political 
 question, have endeavored to make you believe that the Repub- 
 lican party was going to suffer. Gentlemen, you stand in a 
 critical position. The legislation you adopt will determine the 
 future business interests of the state. And no man should at- 
 tempt to put this thing into politics ; we ought not to listen to 
 such considerations. My friend from Exeter has given you a 
 note of warning. Settle this question here and now on business 
 principles. If you are a Democrat say to your fellow-Democrats, 
 and if you are a Republican say to your fellow-Republicans, that 
 no question of politics, either Democratic or Republican, shall 
 enter into the consideration of these matters. We will deter- 
 mine now and forever that the railroads of the state shall be 
 business institutions, and so remain. [Applause.] 
 
 Again, about those bonds that have been flaunted in your 
 faces. I do not like to see it. I do not know how it may seem 
 to you. I do not like it from whatever source it may come. 
 
36 
 
 Let do man stand up here to lead any man away from allegiance 
 to his state, and flourish over his head a bond. That is never 
 done by men who are confident in their principles, who are con- 
 fident of the truth of what they advocate, who believe under 
 God that they are fighting for the right. When men go about 
 promising representatives that they will build a road here and a 
 road there, and by such bids seek their votes, it is an acknowl- 
 edgment in the plainest language that they have no principle to 
 stand upon, and are obliged to adopt subterfuge. [Applause.] 
 
 I will read again from the report of the committee on inter- 
 state commerce : 
 
 Commerce, in the meaning of the constitution, includes the transporta- 
 tion of persons and property from place to place by railroad. Com- 
 merce among the states includes the transportation of persons and prop- 
 erty from a place in one state to a place in another state. Interstate 
 commerce is all commerce that concerns more states than one, and em- 
 braces all transportation which begins in one state and ends in or passes 
 through another state. The power to regulate such commerce is vested 
 exclusively in congress, without any limitations as to the measures to be 
 adopted or the means to be employed in its discretion for the public wel- 
 fare. The states being without power to regulate inter-state transpor- 
 tation, the people must look to congress alone for whatever regulation 
 may be necessary as to inter-state commerce. 
 
 Four fifths of the commerce — and if you think of it a moment 
 you will perceive that is the truth — four fifths of the commerce 
 that comes to the state of New Hampshire is interstate com- 
 merce, and subject to congressional control, is subject to the 
 regulations of the United States. In the control of our rail- 
 roads, therefore, you will see that we have not only got the 
 force of the state law and the state commission, but all the 
 force of the government of the United States and of the inter- 
 state commission. Do we need to fear the result? Do we need 
 to be trembling as to what legislation we shall adopt under 
 these circumstances for fear of Monopoly? Is not all the force 
 of the state government and of the United States sufficient for 
 the occasion? If not, then is government a sham and a failure. 
 I think that no one looking this question over will have any 
 occasion to fear as to the ultimate result. No monopoly is 
 going to overpower or control you. You will have the whole 
 
37 
 
 power of the government, of the state, and of the United States, 
 with its various machinery, to defend and establish your rights. 
 Hear what Mr. Sullowav said in 1883 on this subject: 
 
 Somebody says these roads are going to be terribly powerful when 
 they are united ; they are going to be overwhelming, and the legislature 
 can’t handle them. Is there anybody here who is so white-livered as that? 
 Is there anybody here who believes that these railroads united would n’t 
 be weaker in a contest with the people than to-day? To-day, supposing 
 half a dozen men on the line of the Concord road are at war with it, and 
 they should undertake to come here and get redress, what do you gentle- 
 men, living in other sections of the state, care about that, or if it was on 
 any other road ? But if it was all one road and a gentlemen gets cross 
 with the railroad up at Lancaster, it is the same road that another man 
 gets cross with at Wolfeborough, or over in Keene, or up at Franklin, or 
 down in Nashua, and if they were all joined in one institution, one cor- 
 poration, they would be weaker with the people than to-day. But they 
 would be stronger in another way, they would be stronger when they 
 wanted to make business contracts with the Boston & Lowell Railroad. 
 If they control the entire freight and passenger traffic of northern and cen- 
 tral New Hampshire, they would be in a position to make some demands 
 of the Lowell road that they are not in the position to make to-day, cut 
 up as they are into sections and fragments. They would in that case be 
 a tower of strength. 
 
 Let me further quote to y 7 ou from a speech of the gentleman 
 from Nashua, made in 1883 before the railroad committee : 
 
 Thus stands to-day the great question of the state control of railroads. 
 The testimony proves, what Gov. Cullom claims, that there has been 
 marked progress in the settlement of the railroad question through state 
 boards of commissioners. There are one or two other suggestions that 
 ought not to be neglected. A competent tribunal of this character will 
 relieve the legislature and the railroads of much expense and annoyance. 
 This is no small item. Every intelligent gentleman in the state knows 
 that the legislature has been the scene of fierce conflict between the rail- 
 roads themselves, or the railroads and the public, for a dozen years. It is 
 time for this to cease. If there be any economy or good in it, those re- 
 sults are not apparent, while the evils are bad and growing worse every 
 year. The railroad interest should be taken out of controversy in the 
 legislature, and out of politics, and placed upon a purely business basis. 
 Then, if these roads wish to unite, on the plea of greater economy and 
 efficiency, let them unite, and you will have a tribunal that will compel 
 them to realize the assurances upon which they united. With this tribu- 
 
38 
 
 nal union will be strength and safety. Without it it will be a delusion 
 and a cheat. 
 
 In these two extracts, quoted from the two leading debaters 
 for the Atherton bill, you have set forth very powerful reasons 
 for one railroad system. You have, clearty stated, the power and 
 force of public opinion concentrated from all parts of the state 
 upon one corporation everywhere exposed to the jealous and 
 watchful eye of the people. You have, sharply drawn, a picture 
 of the fierce and demoralizing conflicts that have been witnessed 
 in these legislative halls for the last sixteen years. In the lan- 
 guage of the gentlemen from Nashua, it is time for this to cease. 
 Instead of these false, pernicious, and destructive methods, let 
 us recognize the legitimate action of existing forces. 
 
 There are two forces at present at work in this country. One 
 is corporate power, necessary to the development of our indus- 
 tries, to the development of our water-power, and necessary to 
 intercommunication between the different parts of this vast 
 country. This power, perhaps, is sometimes a little too arro- 
 gant, but on the whole it does its work well. On the other 
 hand is the power of the laboring men, the yeomanry of the 
 land, insisting upon their rights. This power has been seen and 
 felt in this legislature. These are alike necessary to our pros- 
 perity. In the great future of the country these two forces will 
 work out between them better results, better government, greater 
 prosperity, age by age, than could either alone. [Applause.] 
 
 You laboring men who are enlisted for the Concord Railroad 
 are fighting for a monopoly and not for the people, a monop- 
 oly that has darkened your doors and dogged your footsteps 
 with the most powerful and persistent lobby ever known within 
 the state. Will you take such a monopoly into such relations 
 and communion as they shall forever after control you and the 
 state? They have failed in the discharge of their trust, and 
 would now cajole you into giving up to them the state’s interest 
 in their surplus. 
 
 We have been here much longer than any legislature was ever 
 here before. I shall not have much opportunity to talk to you 
 again. I have talked long and earnestly. I feel deeply upon 
 this subject. Will you go from here to your constituents and 
 
39 
 
 tell them you have done nothing, or that you have done the 
 wrong thing ? Remember the surplus of the Concord road. Are 
 you going to vote it away where you can never see it again ? Are 
 you going to erect two systems of railroads, one in the east and 
 one in the west, that shall fight out their battles forever upon 
 the floor of this house ? God forbid that any such dire calamity 
 should come to the state of New Hampshire. God forbid that 
 at the end of this long contest we should give up the ship. Will 
 you be equal to the emergency that fortune has cast upon you? 
 Consider well my words. If I have not told you the truth, put 
 it down against me. I see you have listened to me with care 
 and attention. I think when we come to vote to-morrow you 
 will find not a few in favor of the Hazen bill so called. You 
 will find this house of representatives will make such an em- 
 phatic record of their judgment as your children and your chil- 
 dren’s children will love to look back upon. [Applause.] 
 Gentlemen, I thank you for your patience. I leave the matter 
 with you. My course is marked out. What I shall do is cer- 
 tain. On your consciences as men, on your oaths as legislators, 
 I beg you to act, and leave the consequences where you must 
 leave the result of every act of life, with God. [Applause.] 
 
I