THE RAILROAD QUESTION. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HOIST. JOHN J. BELL 
 
 REPRESENTATIVE FROM EXETER, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 House of Representatives in favor of-Ithe 
 
 Hazen SBill, 
 
 SEPTEMBER 21 , 1887. 
 
 Concarb, 
 
 PRINTED BY THE REPUBLICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION. 
 
 1 887 . 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/railroadquestionOObell 
 

 SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen of the House of Representa¬ 
 tives : 
 
 It has been with no ordinary feelings of embarassment that I 
 have come to the discussion of the measures with regard to 
 railroad legislation that are now before the house. For I as¬ 
 sume that, although this technically is a motion to postpone the 
 consideration of the Hazen bill, as all who have spoken before 
 me seem to have done, the whole question contained in both of 
 these bills is the question really before the house ; that they are 
 so intimately connected that they must be discussed together 
 as one. As I said, I have been greatly embarrassed in ap¬ 
 proaching the discussion of this question, because of my 
 somewhat intimate relations with both the parties here,— 
 relations that have been mutually friendly, so far as I know. 
 The connection with diverse interests, arising from the fact that 
 a portion of my little property is invested in many of these rail¬ 
 roads,—from my policy of so dividing my means that whatever 
 may happen all may not go at once,—divides my interests, and 
 feelings, and wishes. I differ therefore from many gentlemen 
 who have said that they had no pecuniary interest in railroads. 
 I have, but interests so balanced, that I believe—and any man 
 
 who knows my situation in that matter will understand—they 
 *. • 
 
 cannot influence my action here in any way. But still, the 
 relations of friendship that I have sustained toward all these 
 gentlemen are such that they have produced in me a great 
 deal of embarrassment in determining what should be my 
 action in this matter. 
 
4 
 
 I have certain views of mv own, in which while I feel assured 
 that there is a minority, probably, but certainly, as I believe, a 
 constantly increasing minority, who agree with me in the mat¬ 
 ter, yet still I know that to the managers of railroads those 
 views are not agreeable. I am a believer in the system of state 
 management of all its highways, including turnpikes, toll- 
 bridges, and railroads. I know that is not the belief gener¬ 
 ally of the people of this country, but I believe that the time 
 will soon come when a majority of the people of this country 
 will see the necessity of it, as the people in Europe are seeing it 
 now. The state management of railroads began in Switzer¬ 
 land, and extended to Belgium. Its working so far has been 
 so successful and satisfactory in both of those countries, that 
 Germany and France are rapidly adopting it. ItaW has almost 
 succeeded in adopting it, and the time is but very shortly dis¬ 
 tant when throughout Europe no other than governmental man¬ 
 agement of railroads will exist. And I believe we shall find 
 that the same necessities will require of us that the manage¬ 
 ment of all our highways shall be in the hands of the state. 
 
 I entertain fears of the consolidation of great moneyed cor¬ 
 porations : not as to what they may do in a business point of view, 
 but I fear their political power. I do not fear for their influ¬ 
 ence upon the business interests of the community. I have no 
 doubt that those business interests will be carefully attended to, 
 no matter what may be the consolidations that may take place ; 
 but I do fear consolidated power. As I look on, I can see, it 
 seems to me, that the only thing which will limit this political 
 power of consolidated railroads is public opinion. We may 
 exercise a public opiuion here that will have a power and an 
 influence even upon these great corporations. Within the state, 
 and where that power can be exercised upon them, it will miti¬ 
 gate, if it does not entirely remove, the difficulties that I appre¬ 
 hend. But I fear, in the present condition of things in New 
 Hampshire, a power that cannot be regulated by public opinion 
 here. I see that the English government, through the govern¬ 
 ment of the Dominion of Canada, has been for political reasons 
 extending a railroad across the continent, shorter in length than 
 any of the roads that cross the continent in this country, all 
 under one management, with more feasible grades and less 
 
5 
 
 heights to pass over, and which has for the transaction of the 
 transcontinental business certain very great advantages. I see 
 that corporation, with its ramifications in the way of steamboat 
 lines, being continually increased, upon both the Pacific and the 
 Atlantic oceans, and getting to be a power that is almost equal to 
 that of any of the governments of the world themselves. I see 
 the necessity that that road has for an Atlantic terminus. Mon¬ 
 treal is blocked for six months in the year by ice. Where shall 
 it find an Atlantic terminus in which the business can be con¬ 
 ducted? I can see but one port where that business can be 
 done, and that is the port of Boston ; and it seems to me an ab¬ 
 solute necessity to the position of the Canadian Pacific Railroad 
 that they should have a communication with Boston. They are 
 building, I know, a road across the state of Maine, building it in 
 the hope of carrying the trade to Halifax. I know that the city of 
 Portland is hoping that it may get a portion of it; and even poor 
 deserted Wiscasset is trying to-day to see if it cannot secure 
 to its magnificent harbor a portion of the business ;—but the 
 same difficulty that applies to Wiscasset will apply to Portland 
 and Halifax, and that is, that there is not sufficient business 
 there to furnish the necessary return cargoes for the grain and 
 provisions and other things that are to be brought by the Cana¬ 
 dian Pacific road and sent across the Atlantic. The trade can¬ 
 not properly be done unless there are return cargoes, and those 
 ships come back to a port w T hich has a business sufficient to pro¬ 
 duce those return cargoes ; and that port, and the only one 
 which the Canadian Pacific can reach, is the port of Boston. 
 It is, in my judgment, a matter of absolute necessity to the 
 Canadian Pacific that they should own the line of road that comes 
 down through the Merrimack valley, and I have been looking 
 now for years while that road has been building to the time 
 when they were to come. I have been hoping, hoping some¬ 
 times against hope, that the people of New Hampshire would 
 be so far aroused to their position that some sufficient obstacles 
 would be put in the way of their obtaining that control as 
 against the people of New Hampshire. 
 
 Now, I mav be all wrong. I mav be mistaken in mv fears in 
 regard to this matter, but they are to me serious and dangerous 
 facts. Now I look to see what can be done. I can see no way 
 
6 
 
 except in the state control of these roads ; and whether the 
 Canadian Pacific obtain the control of these roads or not, I 
 know that the state of New Hampshire has the power, by its 
 right of eminent domain, to take those roads, even from the 
 Canadian Pacific or anybody else, and that it must eventually 
 do so. But meanwhile I fear this great railway. I look at 
 the various provisions that are proposed as means of securing 
 us safety against them. I find, in both the bills that are now 
 before the house, that there are provisions that foreign corpora¬ 
 tions,—meaning by that the Canadian Pacific and the Grand 
 Trunk,—shall not lease railroads in New Hampshire. I know 
 that the Canadian Pacific charter provides that they shall own no 
 railroads in New Hampshire, and therefore that we have got the 
 provisions of the laws of this state and of Canada both against it; 
 but I remember how for years the Manchester & Lawrence were 
 run. It seeming that the short leases, which alone the state of 
 New Hampshire permitted them to exist under, were not such a& 
 were necessary for the conduct of the business which the Con¬ 
 cord and the Manchester & Lawrence railroads desired to do, 
 they entered nearly thirty years ago, more or less—I cannot tell 
 the exact time—into an agreement; not a lease, as they espec¬ 
 ially declared it to be, and such it really was not, but a busi¬ 
 ness agreement they called it; practically, it was a partnership 
 between the Concord road and the Manchester & Lawrence 
 road. Perhaps in law it might not have been held to be just 
 that, but in its practical effect, and aside from all technicalities, 
 it was a partnership. Under that partnership they commenced 
 doing their business, and after some years the state, fearing 
 what might be the result of such an agreement, by law declared 
 any such agreement to be invalid, and imposed penalties upon 
 the railroads and the managers of railroads who should enter 
 into any such agreement. But in spite of all that legislation, 
 the Concord Railroad for more than twenty years managed to 
 run the Manchester & Lawrence Railroad. 
 
 I think it is a matter that is obvious to any man’s compre¬ 
 hension, that if I own a majority of the stock of two corpora¬ 
 tions, no legislation can make those corporations quarrel; and if 
 a half dozen men own a controlling interest in two corporations, 
 you cannot make those two corporations quarrel. A man will 
 
7 
 
 not quarrel with himself. That was what was the trouble with 
 the Concord and the Manchester & Lawrence. They were 
 owned practically and substantially by the same interests; and 
 if the present management of the Concord road had not for¬ 
 gotten that fact, they would never have lost control of the Man¬ 
 chester & Lawrence road as they did this present season. It 
 was when there became friction between the Manchester & 
 Lawrence and the Concord that the possibility of what has 
 taken place occurred. Now, in the same way in which the Con¬ 
 cord run the Manchester & Lawrence, it is possible, and to my 
 mind it is probable, that the Canadian Pacific will attempt to 
 run these roads in New Hampshire. They want this Merri¬ 
 mack Valley line because it is the best route by which they can 
 connect Montreal and Boston. They want the Boston & 
 Maine road, because bv this lease of the Boston & Lowell 
 it has practically obtained all the terminal facilities that can be 
 obtained in that part of the port of Boston which the Canadian 
 Pacific would naturally most desire to get. I do not believe 
 the provisions which these two bills contain are of any more 
 effect in preventing that than would be a handful of dry forest 
 leaves to stop the mountain torrent. Looking at this as be¬ 
 ing the great danger which is before us to-day, I am still more 
 troubled in the consideration of these measures. And while 
 I say this in regard to these two bills, if there is no bill at all of 
 course it is even worse. If we do nothing, we render the matter 
 so much the easier for the Canadian Pacific to acquire what they 
 may wish. With roads broken up, disconnected, disjointed 
 with the upper roads, themselves going rapidly out of repair, 
 feeling the need of somebody to take them, the chances of the 
 Canadian Pacific are greater than they would be if we passed 
 either of the two bills now before us. Therefore I see a dan¬ 
 ger in either way that we look at this question, and wish we 
 might find the wisdom to devise proper safeguards, which I do 
 not find in either of these bills. 
 
 There have been many things said with regard to the leg¬ 
 islation of four years ago, sometimes called the Colby act, 
 and the railroad commission bill, that were passed together: 
 they were parts of the same legislation. If you will bear with 
 me, I would like to go over a little of the history of that time. 
 
8 
 
 I was a member of that legislature. I knew something of the 
 negotiations while they were in progress, as well as of what was 
 taking place in the legislature itself and before its committee. 
 The policy of New Hampshire up to that time had been to have 
 railroad corporations not too large to be easily managed by the 
 legislature ; to keep them from uniting; to keep them con¬ 
 stantly under the supervision of the legislature by requiring 
 them at short periods to come again under its care. That is to 
 say, short leases and small roads was the policy of New Hamp¬ 
 shire. It was a policy that left the control of the roads very 
 much in the power of the state. To my mind, it was the best 
 and safest policy. I thought so then, and I think so now. I 
 opposed the Colby bill for that reason ; and if to-day we were in 
 the same position we were in four years ago, I would op¬ 
 pose any legislation that looked to the consolidation of roads — 
 not, mind you, that I feared for the business interests of the 
 community, that they would be improperly treated, because I 
 think there never will be any difficulty on that subject. I be¬ 
 lieve we shall find in that way everything will be right,—that 
 we shall be as well treated, and better treated than we should be 
 without consolidation ; but I feared the political p<yver that 
 would arise from it, and I fear it still. I approached four 
 years ago the discussion of these questions with this feeling, 
 and opposed this bill, and it was adopted in spite of the oppo¬ 
 sition that I made. That bill proposed to make a revolu¬ 
 tion in the whole political management of New Hampshire rail¬ 
 roads. It proposed, instead of placing the railroads under the 
 care of the legislature, in the sense that they were to continue 
 every few years to come back under its care, and getting some¬ 
 thing from it, to put them under the care of railroad commis¬ 
 sioners and to allow unlimited consolidation. I remember very 
 distinctly saying in this house then, that under the provisions of 
 that bill it might be that all the railroads in the state might be 
 united in one corporation ; and the onl } 7 answer that was made 
 was, in substance, “Well, xvliat of it V ’ That is to say, both 
 the parties who were concerned in it deemed the possibility so 
 remote that they did not think it a matter worthy of considera¬ 
 tion. Now I deem even remote chances as matters worthy 
 of consideration. It seemed to me then that there was a dan- 
 
9 
 
 ger that the railroads of New Hampshire might be consoli¬ 
 dated, and then it would be dangerous. At least, it was a 
 matter that the house might well consider. I think we know 
 to-day that mv fears in that regard were not altogether 
 groundless ; but it shows what was the feeling and temper of 
 that legislature, that, although the suggestion was made, no 
 means were proposed which would have prevented anything of 
 that kind. 
 
 Certain railroads promoted a general law. I presume they 
 thought a general law would answer the purpose they had 
 in view as well as special statutes would, and that it might 
 be useful to them in future time ; but we are not, as I think, 
 and as has been too much argued during this session of the legis- 
 ture, to look to what the promoters of a measure had in view 
 for the purpose of finding out what that measure itself means. 
 As lawyers, I think every member of the bar in the house will 
 agree that this is not the way courts ever would undertake 
 to construe any statute, and particularly they would not attempt 
 to look at what the opposers of a particular measure declared 
 might be its operation, as a reason why the law was passed. 
 That you might say that the promoters of the measure were 
 telling what its actual intention was might have some plausi¬ 
 bility, but when it is argued to you that the gentlemen who op¬ 
 posed the measure at that time are the men you are to go to to 
 find out what the measure meant, it does not seem to me entirely 
 wise and just. By this measure it was the intention unques¬ 
 tionably of its promoters that the railroads here in the central 
 part of the state, what have been sometimes called the Merri¬ 
 mack Valley system, might be united—the Concord, the North¬ 
 ern, and the Boston, Concord & Montreal, with their branches ; 
 and that the Eastern and the Boston & Maine, with their branch¬ 
 es, were to form another connection. There is no doubt but that 
 that was what these promoters desired themselves. It was what 
 they promoted the bill for. But I do not think we are to look 
 there to find out what the purpose of the bill is. The purpose 
 of the legislature might be entirely different from that of the 
 promoters of the bill; and in any case, when a general law has 
 been promoted, you are not to look simply at that, and limit 
 that general law to what the desires of its promoters were. 
 
10 
 
 In addition to that, the question has been raised with 
 regard to the condition of the Boston & Lowell in this matter. 
 It has been argued that the Boston & Lowell road are a 
 foreign corporation, which is undoubtedly true. It has been 
 argued that they were opponents of the Colby bill, which is also 
 true ; and it has therefore been argued that it could not have 
 been intended that the Boston & Lowell were to lease railroads 
 in New Hampshire. In the original draft, the first draft of 
 the Colby 1 bill, the Boston & Lowell road were not alluded to. 
 In all the subsequent drafts, and there were several of them 
 before we got one that was final, there is this provision, that 
 roads which were chartered by any other state, and which were 
 operating roads in New Hampshire (I may not quote exactly, 
 but that is the substance of it), should be authorized to lease 
 railroads in New Hampshire as New Hampshire roads were 
 authorized to do. The Boston & Lowell at that time were 
 operating the Nashua & Lowell, the Wilton, the Peterborough, 
 and the Manchester & Keene, making one line from Boston to 
 Keene. There is no doubt about the fact that they were actually 
 operating them, but it is argued that the law meant not only opera¬ 
 ting them, but operating them legally. There is no doubt that, 
 whether the leases were legal or not, they were operating the Man¬ 
 chester & Keene under a special act of the legislature which au¬ 
 thorized them to purchase a certain interest in it, and under that 
 act they did purchase it, and their legal operation of the Manches¬ 
 ter & Keene road cannot be denied or disputed. It was intended, 
 in my judgment, to apply to the Boston & Lowell road, because 
 it was intended that the Boston & Lowell should consolidate 
 that whole line from Boston to Keene. It was deemed better, 
 instead of ratifying the leases that then existed, which were 
 under the old New Hampshire wav of doing these things, 
 that they should conform to the new system which the Colby 
 bill introduced, and it was for that purpose that the old leases 
 were not ratified ; but this provision authorizing this leasing was 
 put in that consolidation might be effected. 
 
 If you look further, to what roads could this have applied if 
 it did not apply to the Boston & Lowell ? Did it apply to the East¬ 
 ern? They were a foreign corporation. They were operating rail¬ 
 roads in New Hampshire, but they had already leased themselves to 
 
11 
 
 the Boston & Maine, and were only waiting the passage of that 
 bill that they might ratify the leases. It could not then have been 
 the Eastern that was intended. The Boston & Maine were a 
 New Hampshire corporation. It could not have been intended 
 for them. The Fitchburg operated about five or six miles in New 
 Hampshire, from the state line to Greenville, but the Fitchburg 
 Railroad had no interest in New Hampshire, and no desire to 
 have ; and so far were they from understanding they were in¬ 
 cluded, that when the Cheshire Railroad came here this year, 
 they came asking for a special act, that they might do what they 
 wanted to do. The Connecticut River, which were operating the 
 Ashuelot and the Sullivan, the only railroads in New Hampshire 
 that they could possibly have in New Hampshire,—it was notin- 
 tended for them. The Portland & Ogdensburgh were bankrupt. 
 Thev were in the hands of a receiver. Thev were totallv unable 
 either to lease any other road or be leased themselves. Those were 
 the only foreign corporations that were operating railroads in 
 New Hampshire except the Grand Trunk, which was not chartered 
 by any state, but by the Canadian government. None of these 
 were in a position where it could be said that any of them were 
 intended to be included in that matter. The only road to 
 which it could apply was the Boston & Lowell road. There¬ 
 fore I think there can be but very little doubt that the Boston 
 & Lowell was intended. 
 
 After the passage of this bill, the Boston & Maine and the 
 Eastern promptly ratified their leases. Nobody has doubted, 
 that I am aware of, seriously, from that time to this, that those 
 leases are legal. The Boston & Lowell in a similar wav formed 
 new leases, and ratified them, with the Nashua & Lowell, the Wil¬ 
 ton, and the Peterborough, completing that line of road. Unfor¬ 
 tunately, in some sense of the word, perhaps, the Concord road 
 were notin a position where they could carry out the understanding 
 on their part as to the Merrimack Valley line of road. Almost 
 immediately after the adjournment of the legislature of that 
 year, the supreme court decided that where a man was director 
 in two different roads, he could not act on any contract between 
 those two roads. The good sense of the decision, I think, will 
 make itself manifest and apparent to everybody. The Concord 
 road stood in this position : two of their directors were Northern 
 
12 
 
 Railroad directors ; two were B., C. & M. directors. It was per¬ 
 fects apparent that a majority of their directors being so situated, 
 it was not possible for the Concord to make a lease and carry 
 out the arrangements which were intended to be carried out by 
 the Colby act. They found themselves unable to do it. The result 
 was that there were certain changes in the management of the 
 road ; certain directors resigned, and certain other gentlemen were 
 elected in their places, including one who for his steady per¬ 
 sistency, for his great force of character, has from that day to 
 this been the dominant influence in the Concord Railroad direc¬ 
 torship. He had been opposing all the movements of the Con¬ 
 cord road direction, including this Colby act, and including this 
 project of consolidation with the upper roads. It is not to be 
 expected that his election to a place on the board of directors 
 would at once change his mind. It became necessary that he 
 should see and learn about the operations of the road before he 
 could be convinced of the necessity of union, as he has since 
 been convinced. The result of that was, the Concord road were 
 not only unable but unwilling to carry out the arrangement by 
 which the Northern and the Montreal roads were to be leased to 
 them. And in this condition of things, was it surprising, was it not 
 without any breach of faith or any violation of the law, was it any¬ 
 thing but the most natural thing in the world, that these two roads 
 looked about for somebody with whom they could combine, and 
 went to the Boston & Lowell and were leased to them? It seems 
 to me that it was the very thing that everybody ought to have 
 anticipated, ought to have seen would be the natural result of 
 our legislation and of the condition in which the Concord Rail- 
 road found themselves. That there was a hope and a belief that 
 the result would finally be that the Concord Railroad would be ab¬ 
 sorbed in the same combination is no doubt true, just as it is no 
 doubt true that it was the hope of the Concord Railroad that at 
 the time when the Colby bill was passed their union with the 
 Northern and the B., C. & M. road would sooner or later bring 
 the Lowell into the combination. There is no doubt of that. It 
 was in the minds of all the people who were concerned in it at 
 that time, that that combination should extend from Boston to 
 the limits of New Hampshire, at least, if they did not dream of 
 extending it further ; and very possibly this arrangement might 
 
13 
 
 have been brought about were it not for the position in which the 
 Boston & Maine found themselves placed. Now when the Boston 
 & Maine ratified the lease of the Eastern road, their directors, to 
 my knowledge, were advised that they had better then take a 
 lease of the Boston & Lowell road ; that thev would soon find 
 that the business they were doing would require terminal facili¬ 
 ties a great deal larger than they had or could easily acquire ; 
 that the Boston & Lowell were so situated with reference to 
 their territory that they were liable to continual competition and 
 continual interference in their business by the Boston & Lowell, 
 and that to get their business into the shape they desired, a 
 lease of the Lowell would be necessar} 7 . They were not then 
 prepared for it, but the inevitable logic of events has brought 
 them round to what was then foreseen would necessarily be the 
 result, and the Boston & Maine have leased the Boston & Low¬ 
 ell, thus acquiring the terminal facilities that they needed, and 
 they are relieved from the dangers of competition, which to 
 railroad managers of course are apparent enough. Whether 
 vou look at it in that wav or not, that is the wav that everv 
 railroad manager necessarily looks at competition. 
 
 That brings us up to the commencement of the present ses¬ 
 sion. Not long before we came here the court had decided 
 that the Colby bill was defective in that it had not provided 
 for the protection of dissenting stockholders. Now it was of 
 course expected that something would be done with regard to that 
 matter. It was obvious—it is as well to look the thing squarely 
 in the face as to beat about the bush—it was obvious that a 
 modification of the Colby bill which should cure that defect 
 would necessarily bring a pressure to bear upon the Concord 
 road which it would probably be unable to resist, and that prob¬ 
 ably the result of it would be a combination of all the railroads 
 under the Boston & Maine charter. The Concord Railroad and 
 their friends, and no doubt a great many other citizens of the 
 state, looked upon that with a great deal of fear and disfavor, 
 and they looked to see in what way they conld avoid it. The 
 result of course has been that we have presented to us finally 
 from the committee two bills. And if you will pardon me for a 
 moment, I would like to say a little with regard to these two 
 bills. I think we have not said enough with regard to the 
 
 O o 
 
14 
 
 character of the bills themselves. Now, the Hazen bill pro¬ 
 poses in its first six sections, substantially, simply the cure of 
 the defect which the court found in the Colby bill; that is, it 
 provides means bv which the rights of the disseuting stock¬ 
 holders may be protected. I think there are some defects in it 
 that will probably require amendment should the bill ever get 
 to that stage. I doubt whether either of these two bills can be 
 made operative in their present condition, and so far, I think, I 
 should want certain amendments, but the first six sections are 
 given entirely to that purpose. We find in the Atherton bill a 
 somewhat similar provision, only it is not worked out so carefully 
 or so fully as it is in the Hazen bill. The seventh section declares 
 
 that the Boston & Lowell were authorized bv the Colbv act to 
 
 »- «/ 
 
 lease railroads in New Hampshire. That is the substance of it. 
 I think I have alreadv argued that matter sufficientlv. I think 
 I have shown you why I have reason to believe that that 
 seventh section is simply declaratory, that it makes no new law, 
 that it does not change the law at all, but only leaves it as 
 it was. 
 
 The next sections, 8, 9, 10, and 11, provide for a means by 
 which railroads connecting with each other may obtain the nec¬ 
 essary use of yards and depots under the direction of the rail¬ 
 road commissioners. This applies, of course, being a general 
 law, to all cases of railroad connections everywhere throughout 
 the state, and in almost every great town there is more than one 
 railroad which goes there, and which needs more or less ac¬ 
 commodation. Heretofore there has been little or no diffi¬ 
 culty found about this matter, because the railroads were in 
 a condition where, although they might be inimical, they yet 
 had no conflicting rights or very great difficulty in adjusting 
 these relations. But the result of the purchase of the Manches¬ 
 ter & Lawrence in the interest of the Boston & Maine last 
 spring has changed that position of things in a very serious 
 manner, and such a provision as is contained in these sections 
 of the Hazen bill, it seems to me, is of the highest necessity. 
 Should the Hazen bill fail and the Atherton bill be passed, the 
 similar provision in that bill ought to be so far extended that the 
 remedy in such case should be obvious and distinct, and obviate 
 unnecessarv litigation. The condition of things at Manches- 
 
15 
 
 ter is this: For thirty years or thereabouts these two rail- 
 roads have been run together under the management of the 
 Concord Railroad,—at first under a business contract that 
 practically amounted to a partnership, and, since the passage of 
 the anti-monopoly act, by verbal and tacit understandings. The 
 passenger station is built by the two roads jointly upon land 
 belonging to the Manchester & Lawrence road. The freight 
 station is upon land, if I am correctly informed, that was pur¬ 
 chased bv the Concord Railroad, and the building was built bv 
 the Concord Railroad with funds which it may be claimed were 
 the joint funds of the two corporations. A part of the yard 
 is on land belonging to the Concord Railroad, a part of it on 
 land belonging to the Manchester & Lawrence Railroad, and a 
 part of it to both the Concord and the Manchester & Lawrence, 
 under the partnership or business contract that existed prior to 
 the anti-monopoly act. I believe a portion of it belongs to the 
 Concord & Portsmouth Railroad, and a portion of it has been 
 purchased since by funds which, it may be claimed, are a part 
 of the joint funds of the Concord and the Manchester & Law¬ 
 rence railroads. Under those circumstances it is next to im¬ 
 possible that the roads can be run in harmony over the iron 
 that is laid there, without somebody, who has a power above both 
 corporations, determines, at least temporarily and until their 
 final rights can be ascertained by the courts, the right of pass¬ 
 ing over the iron and making the necessary connections. It 
 seems to me that our friends at Manchester will find themselves 
 in a position of the very greatest difficulty, unless some such 
 provisions are passed. They are general in their character, 
 and apply not only to that but to every other part of the state. 
 They will be needed in other places, as well as there. They 
 will facilitate and harmonize the action of the railroads in all 
 such cases, and especially in those cases at Manchester; and it 
 seems to me that we should be derelict in our duty if we do not 
 provide some means by which the imminent quarrel between 
 these two railroads there can be avoided. 
 
 The next section provides for enforcing the decrees of the 
 railroad commissioners. I think that you will be satisfied, upon 
 reading the reports of the commissioners, that some such action 
 as that is necessary and desirable, and, whether the one or the 
 
16 
 
 other bill be passed, that some provision like this should be in 
 it. It then provides for mileage tickets, provides for fares, and 
 provides that the act may be altered or repealed. Now, these 
 are the provisions of this bill. They are all general in their 
 nature, they are all of them in the direction of carrying out the 
 purpose and intent of the Colby bill, and supplying the defect 
 that time and the court have shown to exist in it. If we are to 
 have any general railroad law, if we are to manage our railroads 
 by a general law and under the regulation and government of 
 the railroad commissioners, which the gentleman from Nashua, 
 in his eloquent speech upon the railroad lobby a few weeks ago, 
 said was the best and most proper way of managing railroads,— 
 if we are to manage them in that way, then all these amend¬ 
 ments that are in the Hazen bill ought in substance to be 
 adopted. 
 
 Let us look at the Atherton bill, and see a little about the 
 provisions that are contained in it. By its first provision it 
 unites the Concord and the Boston, Concord & Montreal rail¬ 
 roads, and provides for their absolute union instead of a leasing. 
 I do not know that in the nature of things there is anv verv 
 great objection to that, except so far as they interfere with al¬ 
 ready acquired rights of other people. Still it has not been the 
 policy of the people thus far to consolidate railroads ; and when 
 the Colby bill was first reported to the house four years ago, it 
 contained a provision authorizing the consolidation of railroads, 
 which was modified by the legislature because they were un¬ 
 willing to allow consolidation of corporate franchises. They 
 were willing enough to vote that the roads might be leased, but 
 they were entirely unwilling that there should be a consolida¬ 
 tion ; and therefore this is not in accordance with, it is not carry¬ 
 ing out the principles of, the Colby bill. It is altogether a new 
 departure ; and it may very well be doubted, it seems to me, 
 whether this new departure is wise. 
 
 The Concord Railroad, it has been said, are rich ; they are 
 strong ; they are powerful; their power the legislature of New 
 Hampshire have had for many years opportunity to know. They 
 are wealthy, although I think their wealth has been greatl} 7 over¬ 
 stated, and much of the talk that has been made here there can be 
 as little doubt is extravagant. The proposition is, that the Bos- 
 
17 
 
 ton, Concord & Montreal road, which is in one sense of the 
 word a pauper, which is unable to pay dividends upon all its 
 stock, shall be so placed that there shall be dividends upon this 
 stock—the old and new stock—which has been so pitifully talked 
 of in this discussion. Here, it seems to me, is really the ex¬ 
 planation why this provision was made. It was made, not 
 merely that they might be allowed to lease, not merely that 
 some provision might be made by which they can do that— 
 there is no difficulty about that at all; with the present man¬ 
 agement a lease could have been easily arranged between 
 them—but it is that in some way the stock of the Montreal 
 road, the old and the new stock, may be made to pay a divi¬ 
 dend, and that those gentlemen who have been buying a large 
 proportion of that stock may make their stock, which cost them 
 $15 and $35 a share, worth par and above. It seems to me 
 that that is really at the bottom of this whole transaction. It 
 is not to my mind desirable that we should do this thing. 
 
 There is one other provision in the eighth section of the 
 Atherton bill to which I wish to call your attention. It has 
 been frequently asserted here by gentlemen on this floor that by 
 the passage of the Hazen bill we should be placing the railroads 
 of New Hampshire out of our control, and out of the control of 
 our successors for three generations—nearly a hundred years ; 
 that there would be no limit; that there would be no mode by 
 which we could escape from the condition thus produced;—and 
 yet this very Atherton bill contains a provision which proposes 
 to take the Boston, Concord & Montreal out from under the lease 
 to the Lowell; this very bill thus points out a way by which we 
 can escape from the very great danger which these gentlemen 
 seem to apprehend. I think this question, as a matter of law, 
 has been sufficiently explained to you. I have no doubt of the 
 authority of the state of New Hampshire to take any road in 
 New Hampshire under this right of eminent domain, to run it 
 itself, or to turn it over to the care of another corporation. We 
 settled that question long ago with regard to turnpikes and toll- 
 bridges, and the same law applies to railroads. Of course the 
 public good must require it, because we have no right to take 
 under the right of eminent domain except for the public good, 
 
 and it is also true that we must pay whatever it may be worth. 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 All that is provided for, I believe, in this bill, and probably 
 sufficiently. 
 
 The next provisions in this Atherton bill are, to my mind, 
 even more objectionable. They provide for extensions of 
 railroads from Groveton to Colebrook and the Canada line ; 
 from the end of the Whitefield & Jefferson road,—not the Jef¬ 
 fersonville road, as it is printed.—from the end of the White- 
 field & Jefferson road to Berlin, and indefinitely beyond up into 
 the woods to nobody knows where ; and other branches, includ¬ 
 ing the Tilton & Belmont, the Lake Shore, and any other 
 branch of the Boston, Concord & Montreal that mav be dreamed 
 of by anybody—all of these they are to extend ; and the Upper 
 Coos road, another one ; and they may guarantee their loans. 
 They may themselves take stock, buy their bonds, and borrow 
 money for that purpose. Why, gentlemen, what is the end of 
 all this? How much is going to be the capital stock of all 
 these roads? How much are going to be the bonds of these 
 roads? How heavy a load is to be put upon the Concord road, 
 upon this great property, this valuable property, which already, 
 it is said, pays a hundred thousand dollars more than the state 
 allows them to take in dividends ? To what extent is stock-water¬ 
 ing to be carried on under this operation ? It seems to me as 
 if they had left open here an unlimited range for this kind of 
 gambling, which has made so many fortunes in this country, and 
 from which the people are to suffer for many years. It seems 
 to me that these provisions are of the most dangerous charac¬ 
 ter ; that they are liable to saddle upon the business of New 
 Hampshire, and upon the business especially of this part of 
 New Hampshire, a load which will be felt not for one, or two, 
 but for unnumbered generations. 
 
 And now I come to what I regard as one of the most serious 
 propositions in the whole matter. It is also to my mind an¬ 
 other very great danger. I fear quite as much as anything else 
 for the public integrity. I think there can be few men who 
 have the interests of the country at heart but must have seen 
 the rapid growth of disregard of the crime of bribery as it has 
 grown up throughout the country. It has met from moralists 
 at all times more or less denunciation ; and an eloquent divine 
 in Boston, only last Sunday, took occasion to make his sermon 
 
19 
 
 on that very subject,—and, as an example of what I mean and 
 what I believe to exist as bribery, he said that if President 
 Cleveland disregards the civil service law and appoints gen¬ 
 tlemen to office in the hope that thereby he is going to in¬ 
 crease his own chances for a second nomination, he is guilty 
 of bribery. Now, gentlemen, I believe that. Granted the 
 premises, which I do not undertake to assume to be true, 
 but granted his premises that the president is doing that 
 very thing, it is bribery. The English courts, which have 
 now the control of contested election cases in parliament, have 
 held very stringently on the subject of bribery, and yet in direct 
 accordance with the decisions of the courts on that subject. 
 They have held that even the employment of carriages to carry 
 the voters to the polls was briberv. Thev have held that when 
 a man gave something to the fuel society of the town, pending 
 the election, that that was bribery. I have no doubt they 
 would hold that when, in order that the river and harbor bill 
 might be passed through congress, little sops were given to the 
 representatives of this district and that district and the other 
 district, and thereby the country saddled with enormous expense 
 with verv little benefit, as we all know has been the case, that 
 that was briberv of those members of congress. Now I believe 
 that this Atherton bill, in the sense that I have spoken of, 
 bristles all over with bribery. It contains provisions for build¬ 
 ing several roads in various parts of the state for the purpose 
 of catching the votes of the citizens there, and of the represent¬ 
 atives from those sections. I hold that when any member 
 of this house comes here and says that he votes for a particular 
 measure because he expects that some interest, some gain, is 
 coming to himself or to his immediate locality by the promise of 
 somebody else of what they will do, that he comes perilously 
 near the offence of bribery. I know, I allow, that the moral 
 guilt is not the same when a man does that which the commu¬ 
 nity itself has learned to look upon as innocent, as in the case 
 when the guilt of the act is distinctly acknowledged. Now, 
 while I acknowledge that the gentlemen, probably neither of 
 them, carried this idea of bribery in their minds at the time, 
 yet still here is the fact that gentlemen have on the floor of this 
 house exhibited bonds which they say have been given, which 
 
20 
 
 will promote the interests of their own immediate localities ; and 
 I say that when they do that they come perilously near this 
 thing. I have no doubt that it comes naturally from those prac¬ 
 tices of which I have spoken in congress, and in municipal, 
 state, and national elections, where we have been losing our 
 estimate of what is right in the matter; but it also comes from 
 the fact that we have permitted one of the largest of our public 
 interests, that of our highways, to be carried on by corpora¬ 
 tions which are not only the managers of a public trust, but 
 also have a pecuniary benefit which they expect to gain from it, 
 and that pecuniary benefit is large enough in almost every case 
 entirely to blind them in their public duty. Now we have seen, 
 in more than one instance, that the stock of a railroad has been 
 purchased for the purpose of obtaining its control; that is to 
 say, that gentlemen, in order that they may become trustees of 
 a great public highway, have seen fit to purchase stock for that 
 purpose, that is, to purchase the office that they want to hold. 
 I remember well, that in a case in which this whole matter came 
 up, of the purchase of stock for the purpose of obtaining con¬ 
 trol, the supreme court of New Hampshire, in delivering their 
 opinion in that case, closed their opinion with the pregnant re¬ 
 mark that u if there are any honest stockholders in this road, if 
 they will apply to the court, the court will see that they are 
 amply protected.’ 5 I may not give the exact quotation, but that 
 was the substance of the suggestion. I have no doubt it was 
 in the mind of the court at this time that this purchase of stock 
 was a species of bribery, a species of the purchase of public 
 office ; and I have no doubt that if in every such case a proper 
 application is made by the stockholders to the court, the court 
 will in such case enjoin the holders of such stock from voting 
 upon it. One of the greatest safeguards that the people of New 
 Hampshire have is in the integrity of its court, and the court 
 have both the will and the power to protect us against this sort 
 of thing. While I say this, I do not want to be understood as 
 impugning personally the motives of any member. These 
 things have gone to that extent that we do not any of us realize 
 how near we are getting to the purchase of office, and to the 
 prostituting of our influence as officers to our own personal in¬ 
 terest ; but to my mind it is time that we should all understand 
 that this is the true nature of these transactions. 
 
21 
 
 Then the bill goes on to regulate fares and freights, and then 
 it contains two other provisions : that no foreign railroad corpo- 
 atiou shall lease roads in New Hampshire. It is a modification 
 of the Colby bill, in substance repealing the 18th section of 
 that bill. It then provides that railroads that are united must 
 be continuous and physically connected lines. I do not quite 
 see what the need of any such modification of the Colby bill is. 
 The physical connection does not seem to me to be of the 
 slightest consequence in the matter, nor do I quite like the 
 idea that roads must be continuous before they are united. 
 The historv of railroad consolidations in this countrv, and I 
 think the same thing is true everywhere else, has been, speak¬ 
 ing in a business point of view, that they have been for the ben¬ 
 efit of the people, no matter whether they were competing lines 
 or continuous ; that if you take, for instance, the Old Colony 
 road in Massachusetts, which goes round Boston almost, many 
 different lines have been consolidated. Although in some cases 
 they were not in the first instance physically connected, and al¬ 
 though they are in no sense continuous, it has been for the ben¬ 
 efit of the’whole people who are served by them. I believe that 
 the same thing will be found true everywhere. I know that it 
 militates against what is thought to be the principle of competi¬ 
 tion : and a great many people have the idea that by competition 
 in railroads they are going to gain something. Now, I have a 
 word or two to say in regard to that matter. My observation of 
 competition between railroads is, that it has three different 
 stages. In the first place, by competition fares and freights of 
 all sorts are reduced ; all sorts of facilities are afforded ; competi¬ 
 tion in running time is carried on, to the danger of the public 
 who have occasion to do business over the lines. That is fol¬ 
 lowed almost immediately by exhaustion of both lines ; and then 
 a pooling arrangement is made by which the rates are raised to 
 a higher point than they were before, and there results a period 
 of mutual indifference for a time ; that is, all pooling arrange¬ 
 ments are made temporarily. After they have expired, there is 
 a period of temporary indifference until a new time of competi¬ 
 tion comesTound. Now, I do not believe that it is good for the 
 business of the community that they should have that sort of 
 competition ; nor is legitimate business promoted by it. It is 
 
22 
 
 better for business to know distinctly what it is to expect, and to 
 have a certain fixed line which it is to follow. The expense of 
 doing the business is vastly increased. That expense has got to 
 be paid by the people who do the business. The result has been 
 that every consolidation has resulted in lower rates, and in better 
 trains and better facilities. 
 
 Now, not to weary you, for I am already taking more time 
 than I expected, I wish simply to state the conclusion that has 
 come into my mind in regard to this matter. There are three 
 courses we may pursue. In the first place, we may indefinitely 
 postpone both bills, and do nothing. I have some reason to 
 suppose that there are some gentlemen in the house who think 
 this will be the wiser course. I do not. I do not believe that 
 any of the dangers we apprehend can be avoided in that way. 
 I believe it will be found that the great danger, which is so very 
 pressing, in my mind, from the Canadian Pacific, will be in¬ 
 creased in that wav. If we do nothing upon this question, then 
 all this time that we have spent, now exceeding by probably 
 three weeks the longest duration of any session of the New 
 Hampshire legislature, for the purpose of settling this ques¬ 
 tion, will be lost. This railroad question will come into the 
 political discussions of the next year, and in all the caucuses 
 the question of a man’s position in regard to this question is to 
 be one of the controlling elements. In every caucus and in 
 every convention it is going to disturb, in many ways that none 
 of us can now foresee, the result of that election. We cannot 
 afford to throw such a disturbing influence into the campaign. 
 In the next place, our successors will have the same lobby that 
 we have had during the session ; and I think that every member 
 of this house must by this time be convinced that the demoral¬ 
 izing influence of such a lobby upon the house and upon the 
 state is too great to render it desirable that we should have it 
 here again. And to my mind, even more serious than these is 
 the fact that the upper roads are in a bad physical condition, 
 owing to the fact that, for three years now, who is to own them, 
 who is to run them, has been a matter of doubt. They have 
 been simply patched up from time to time, in order that they 
 might be run for a few years, and two years more of similar 
 neglect will render those roads dangerous. With the uncer- 
 
23 
 
 tainty as to what the next legislature will do, you cannot expect 
 any road to furnish the money that will put those roads in a 
 proper condition. In order that they may be placed in such 
 condition that the business of the state can be transacted as it 
 should be, it is necessary that we should do something at this 
 time. We have no right to refuse to do anything with regard 
 to this matter. It is our duty to do something. 
 
 Shall we pass the Atherton bill? What will be its effect? 
 Its effect will be, if it succeeds, and it may be made to succeed, 
 to create two powerful railroads in New Hampshire, intensely 
 hostile and inimical to each other, who will come before every 
 legislature, who will be pressing every election with their quar¬ 
 rels. Whatever may be the benefit that might be derived from 
 this bill, it seems to me that the great danger of this continual 
 fight between them vastly outweighs it. And for that reason, 
 and for the objection I have already mentioned, I do not think 
 that I can support the Atherton bill. I was, at the beginning 
 of the session, inclined to hope that I might be able to support 
 something in that direction ; and it was not until it began to de¬ 
 velop, and I began to watch that development, that I perceived 
 nothing of that kind could be done in the interests of the people 
 of New Hampshire and of the whole state. I think you must 
 have seen, from what I have previously said, that the result of 
 the whole thing has been to bring me round to the necessary 
 conclusion that the interest of the people of New Hampshire, 
 of the whole state, is in favor of the passage at this time of the 
 Hazen bill, after it shall have been modified in some important 
 particulars. [Applause.] 
 
 A great deal has been said here with regard to the love and 
 affection which gentlemen have toward the state of New Hamp¬ 
 shire. I am glad to hear that all of New Hampshire’s sons, 
 whether natural or adopted, have that feeling. I am proud to 
 believe that there is no man in the state who is not proud 
 of her, and proud of her history. There is no man who lives 
 here more proud of her than I am ; and I trust that whatever 
 we shall do will be done with a sole view to the interests and 
 the happiness of the people of New Hampshire. 
 
* 
 


 
 \ 
 
 
 I