338.8 Jl9e OAK ST. tlDSt The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN L161 — O-1096 AN EXPOSITION ^ CHARACTER AND MANAGEMENT NEW JEBSEYJOIll lOBOPOLIES, THE CAMDEN AND AMBOY RAILROAD AND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY: THE DELAWARE AND RARITAN CANAL COMPANY, Juir their ^penlrngcs. BY GEORGE N . T A T H A M PHILADELPHIA: KING & BAIRD, PRINTERS, No. 9 SANSOM STREET. 1852. v \ T\se • # rJ-- PEEFACE Oo Some explanation may be due to the public and to myself respecting the causes that have led to this publication. It is the more necessary inasmuch as E. A. Stevens, and others with him, have dragged our island controversy before the public, probably to divert attention from them- selves, and have assailed me in twin publications : one of them called a " Memorial," and the other a '•lleport of a Committee," respecting the paternity of which I have something more to say, for in both, the authors, learned in the law, have stated or suppressed facts as best suited the monopo- lists, and generally have come about as near the truth, I suppose, as their consciences Avould let them. It would be out of place to discuss the island question hei'e. Suffice it to say, that in 1848 and 1849 I had purchased ancient title and claim, both under New Jersey and Pennsylvania; and with tlie full concurrence of the officers of the Land Department at Harrisburg, myself and other owners Ci' had afterwards applied for and obtained patents from the State, under the Act of 1806. C^ The statement that I ever sought to deprive any man, or the Ferry Company, of their rights, by ^* these or any other proceedings, is equally silly and unfounded, and indeed constitutionally impos- sible. I endeavored to purchase every possible claim to the land I wanted, — for actual use. f- Finding that the Ferry Company claimed 600 feet of land under an act authorizing the con- ^ structiou of a canal, which they had made 150 feet in width, I made, in 1850, many efforts to prevent a controversy, but without success. The company afterwards committed a gross trespass upon my possession, for which I sued them, necessarily in the name of my lessee, and with his full concurrence. On the 30th November the Ferry Company corrupted and bribed my tenant to take a lease under themselves, and in February, 1851, he discontinued the action. I then instituteil Qj an ejectment. The company were made defendants. The cause was tried in the District Court in l^ May. Judge Siiakswood ruled that the canal of the Ferry Company was the boundary of their right, and that they could gain no title under my lessee against his landlord. Of course the C^ verdict went against them. A motion for a new trial was argued and overruled in June, 1851. "^ They then took the case to the Supreme Court. Mr. Stevens, in his publication, says I " must ^ be eventually defeated." But probably the master-spirit of the Napoleon Line could hardly find fC^-^ an unfeed lawyer to endorse his prophecy. A de.'iire to know who my overbearing adversaries were, led me into an investigation of the character of the New Jersey monopolies, of which this Ferry Company is a sort of branch. The facts that presented themselves were so extraordinary, that irrespective of the island controversy, I resolved to lay them before the Pennsjdvania Legislature. In March, 1852, two bills at my instance were read in place, and referred to the House Committee of Ways and Means. One of these proposed to tax the monopolists, and their appendages, upon their offices, their business, and their estate in Pennsylvania, and the other to render their mal- practices and overcharges punishable in our own courts. The matters involved were discussed in committee on the 29th March. Most of the facts stated in these pages were laid before them. It was shown, among other things, that the Philadelphia and Trenton Rail Pioad Company were defaulters to the State in a large amount, under management and pretences that wanted legislation. The subject was voluminous, and seemed to fall upon dull ears. The committee were overburthened with business. Not one of them took notes. The bills were evidently "smothered." A few days before the close of the session the chairman said he " had not thought of the subject since the day of the argument." About the middle of April I presented a memorial to the Senate concerning the associated companies, which was referred to the Committee on Finance, and ordered to be printed. They reported a resolution for the appointment of an investigating committee, to sit during the recess, with power to send for persons and papers. It was delayed and resisted in the Senate (whilst the partisans of the monopolists were busy without,) until the 3d of May, the morning before the final adjournment, when, after a long and warm contest, the resolution failed by a tie vote. On the same busy morning a very long document, professing to be a report of the House Com- mittee, was presented in that branch of the legislature. The manner in which it was introduced may h^imrthj understood by the following note to me from the Hon. Gkohge H. Hart, one of the Committee, — its most efficient member, — and a representative from the city of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, October 6, 1852. George N. Tatham, Esq. Dear Sir : — " You ask whether I coincided with, or was instrumental in preparing the statements contained in the report from the Committee of Ways and Means, on the subject of taxing certain incorporations and associated companies, &c., &c., as submitted on the day befoi-e the adjournment of the legislature of 1852. 4 ^ ^ PREFACE. " In reply, I will state that I was not ihstrumental in preparing such report; and although I was obliged, by a combination of circumstances, to perform much of the responsible and arduous duties assigned to the Chairman of that Committee, in making up the estimates for all the ordinary expenses of the Government, — the provisions for the Canals and llaih-oads of the Commonwealth, and their repairs, &c. &c., and preparing the general act : in addition to a full proportion of other duties assigned to me by the Speaker as an experienced Legislator: I had no notice of a meeting of the Committee at the time the report is said to have been submitted, and therefore knew nothing of the character of it, until I saw it in print months after." "The means adopted by the Chairman, in calling the meeting at an eai-ly hour in the moi-ning, for the purpose of submitting so important a report, and at a time when he knew certain of the members would not be present without notice, was, in my opinion as unjustifiable as it was un- usual. There are several particulars contained in the document referred to that are inconsistent with the province of the Committee, and in my opinion, with the facts, so far as evidenced by either of the parties." Very respectfully yours, G. H. Hart. I have some evidence, (and not a particle of doubt,) that this " Report" was prepared by the Counsel of the Monopolists, and that its contents were but imperfectly known, if at all, to the Committee. In August last, this " Report" first met my eye, reprinted by the Companies. Its character may be judged of by a few particulars. It states that my charges against the Joint Companies " were examined by Commissioners ap- " pointed by the Legislature of New Jersey, some three years ago, who, in a report made on the "8th February, 1850, completely exonerated the Companies, and their officers from them." This statement is simply and absolutely untrue. Let that Report of 1850 be compared with these pages, or with my memorial. It will be herein seen, at pages 17 and 21, that in the reports of the New Jersey Commissioners, both of 1848, and 1850, they have avoided altogether the expression of any opinion upon those few of the present accusations that were even incidentally before them. Iheir affair was with the interests of the State of New Jersey. Again._ It is alleged in this "Report," that the Philadelphia and Trenton Rail Road Company " have divided regularly aZ^ their nett profits, and declared them according to law, and have paid into " the State Treasury all taxes upon the same, whether under their charter, or the tax acts of "1840 and 1844." As if by way of comment upon these allegations, the monopolists have, since this report, paid to the State a small portion of these very taxes, withheld, without even color of excuse, ever since 1836, 1837, and 1838. The incorrectness of the whole statement will be found exposed herein- after at pages 22 to 26. There was a Bill, about escheats of lands held by or in trust for foreign corporations, reported at my instance by the Senate Committee on Finance. The present law exposes the interests of the Commonwealth to be defeated. There is no instance of its having been executed. It is stated in this " Report" that " the effect of this bill would be to strip Helena Packer, a fatherless and "motherless child, of every dollar she has in the world.'"" It is almost said that such was my intention. The unjustifiable nature of the statement will appear by reference to the evidence of John R. Thomson before the New Jersey Commissioners. (See their Report of 1850, Appendix, p. 29.) In the sale of the Company's coal lands in 1846 to R. W. Packer, (now about half paid for,) it was substantially agreed that if the title failed, the purchase money should be recoverable back. The law as it existed, forfeited the property. But, Mr. Packer was said to have improved the land. No body was more desirous than myself that the interests of his estate should be protected. It had already been done, by Act of Assembly, when this atrocious " report" was smuggled into the House, which endeavoring to shelter the monopolists under sympathy for Packer's child, — avoiding or misrepresenting the real matters before the Committee,— goes out of its way, into subjects not before them, to libel the citizen who dared to expose the misconduct and defalcations of the Wew Jersey monopolists. These and other fabi'ications, circulated by an army of mercenaries among the members of the Legislature, had their effect with many worthy men. It is only another proof of the character of these corporate monopolies, dangerous alike to private and to public safety. _ It is not a new remark, nor the less true for being old, that men of reputable estimation, in asso- ciated bodies, are sometimes found to join in proceedings which as individuals they would condemn. The reader of these pages may make the application. I have endeavoured to confine myself chiefly to such facts as can be verified by the laws and public documents of the State of New Jersey: The official reports of the State Directors : The reports and addresses of the Joint Board of Directors and of Special Committees of the Consolidated Compa- nies; The reports of the New Jersey Commissioners of Investigation, both of 1848 and 1850, with the statements and testimony under oath of the officers of the Companies and others before them, such as John R. Thomson, James Morrell, Wm. H. Gatzmer, John D. Hagar and others ; besides the answer in Chancery, under oath, of Edwin A. Stevens, J. R. Thomson and James Nieison, to Mr. Hagar's Bill in Equity against them. For every material fact, not publicly notorious, my authority has been given. If injustice has been done, it can be easily exposed. But, if the official statements and oaths of the parties themselves cannot be relied upon— if these be slander, they must make the most of it. „, ., ^ , , . ^ GEORGE N. TATHAM. Philadelphia, Oct. 9, 1852. NEW JERSEY CANAL AND RAILROAD MONOPOLY. Report 1850, part 1, p. 33, Ac. JOINT COMPANIES. The " Camden and Amboy Railroad and Transportation Company" and the " Delaware and Raritan Canal Company," were iDCorporated on the fourth day of February, A. D., 1880, by separate acts of the Legislature of New Jersey. Oq the fifteenth day of February, IbSl, the two companies were consolidated by an act of the Legislature, and have since formed sub- stantially a single body under the name of the "joint or consolidated com- panies." The officers of the Camden and Amboy Railroad Company. Robert L. Stevens, President. Edwin A. Stevens, Treasurer and Superintendent. Wm. H. Thomson, Secretary. W. H. Gatzmer, Philadelphia, and Ira Bliss, New York, Agents for Passenger lines. Wm. S. Freeman, Philadelphia, and Alfred Decker, New York, Agents for Transportation lines. Benjamin Fish, Central x\gent, Trenton. Officers of the Canal Company. Robert F. Stockton, President. John R. Thomson, Secretary. James Nielson, Treasurer. N. Welch, Engineer. The Act of February 15, 1831, consolidating the Companies, declared Laws X. J., their stock to be "Joint stock ;" directed a joint Board of Directors; ren- ^g/g'^f ''I'gn^. dered the Companies jointly liable on all contracts, and gave them power dixjp.'ao. to sue jointly and to be sued, substantially as one Corporation. The Joint Board of Directors. The two Boards of Directors, with the two State Directors meet at Bor- dentown at the office of the Companies, and organize a Joint Board of Directors. These manage, control, and direct all the affairs of the two Companies. They also appoint "aGreneral Superintendent of Accounts," and "an Executive Committee," consisting of six. John Potter, Esq., was President of the Joint Board, from its organiza- tion up to the time of his death. John R. Thom-son, has been Secretary of the Joint Board, and Richard Stockton, Superintendent of Accounts. In 1848, the Joint Board of Directors was composed as follows : Report 1850, part 2, p. 1. John ]Mickle, Wm. McKnight, Wra. Brown, R. Stockton Field, James Potter, Jas. S. Green, James Neilson, Benjamin Fish, John C. Stevens, Most of these persons have held these offices from the establishment of the Companies. On the second of March, A ]^ J^^f^ i%w was passed which, among other provisions, enacts: ^ OOlD ^v> Jno. J. Chetwood, } State Wm. Irick, J Directors. John Potter, R. L. Stevens, Edwin A. Stevens, R. F. Stockton, .John R. Thomson, J. Parker, G. D. Wall, Address 184S. p. 26. MONOPOLY. — CHARTER PERPETUAL. Laws N, J., incorpo- rating, &c., IJage 32. lb. p. 25, lb. p. 27. Director's re- port, 1840, p. Laws N. J., 1849, appen- dix, p. 33. "Section 2. That it shall not be lawful, at any time during the said railroad charter, to construct any other railroad, or railroads, in this State, without the consent of the said companies, which shall be intended or used for the transportation of passengers or merchandise between the cities of New York and Philadelphia, or to compete in business with the railroad authorized by the act to which this supplement is relative." The Charters are perpetual, subject to the following provisos : Sec. 22. " And he it enacted that at the expiration of thirty years from "the completion of the said roads the Legislature of this State may cause an "appraisement of the said roads and the appendages thereof, to be made by "six persons, three of whom shall be appointed by the Chief Justice of thij " State for the time being, the remaining three by the Company," &c. &c. ko,. " And thereupon the State shall have the privilege for three years of " taking the said roads, upon payment within one year after electing to " take the said road." By Act of February 1831, Sec. 1, supplementary to the Charter of the Delaware and liaritan Canal Company, it was enacted, " that the 25th Sec- "tion of the act," (the charter) "to which this is a supplement be and the " same is hereby so amended as to extend the time of thirty years therein " mentioned to fifty years," &c. The road was agreed to have been completed January 1, 1839. By Sect. 4. of the act of March 2, 1832, the Compauies are required to divide the whole of the actual net profits, retaining only not exceeding $100,000, to meet unexpected damage to the roads. [It will be seen hereafter, how the Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad and Camden and Phihxdelphia S. B. Ferry Company, enable them to evade this provision, by purchasing real estate for their use.] As if in order to prevent the possibility of a purchase by the State,* after strenuous efforts on the part of the monopolists, the Constitution of New Jersey was altered June 29, 1844., and it was ordained : Sec. VI. Art. 3. "The credit of the State shall not be directly or in- " directly loaned in any case." Art. 4. " The Legislature shall not in any manner create any debt or " debts, liability or liabilities of the State which shall singly or in the "aggregate, with any previous debt, or liabilities, at any time exceed one " huudrcd^ thousand dollars, except," &c. &c. &c., "unless the same shall "be authorized by a law for some single object or tvork, to be distinctly "specified therein," &c. &c. — "And no such law shall take effect until it "shall at a general election have been submitted to the people, and have " received the sanction of a majority of all the votes," &c. The roads and canal of these companies being separate works, and they owning or controlling others to the extent of millions, it is manifest that admirable pains have been taken to fortify their Charters in perpetuity. This monopoly is inconsistent with the spirit, if not actually prohibited by the letter of the Constitution of the United States, which provides. Art. 4. Sec. 2. " The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privi- " leges and immunities of citizens in the several states." But if Edwin A. Stevens, R. L. Stevens, Robert F. Stockton and others are invested with a monopoly of railway transportation between New York and Philadelphia, with which no competition shall be allowed, and if these parties are further clothed with the power of taxing the citizens of other States, (under the pretence of taxing through travel) whilst loay travel is exempted, it is idle to talk of equal privileges and immunities. Article!. Section 9. ^. 5. of the U. S. Constitution declares, "No "preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the " ports of one State over those of another, nor shall vessels bound to or from " one State be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another." Art. 1. Sec. 10. \. 2. "No State shall without the consent of Congress * John R. Thomson, Secretary*6f the Joint Boar(j, -was most prominent in the work. UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. "lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except -what may be abso- " lutely necessary for executing its inspection laws ; and the nett produce of all « duties and imposts laid in any State on imports or exports shall be for '' the use of the treasury of the United States." " No State shall without '' the consent of Congress lay any duty on tonnagr," etc. At this date, steam transportation by water and by land was unknown. But, if New Jersey has granted a monopoly of railway transportation between Pennsylvania and New York, to Messrs. Stevens, Stockton and Report of , . .•'.,., 1 1 • ,/ >> 1 ii .Joint Isoara, their associates — m which monopoly she is "A partner, and they are is40, p. 8. " HER LESSEES AND AGENTs" — empowered to levy duties for the State, by Address 1S46, means of excessive freights and fares, especially aimed at, and discriminating p-^"- ">> 17, against the social and business intercourse of the citizens of other States across her soil — and at the same time carefully exempting her own com- merce from such impositions, then is New Jersey wanting in comity towards her sister States — ungenerous and unjust to their people, and faithless to her national obligations. The constitutionality of this monopoly was somewhat discussed in 1835, when the State Legislature was asked for authority to lay rails upon " the straight turnpike," now, the branch road from Trenton to New Brunswick. The companies claimed that their charters were contracts, and inviolable. Chief Justice Taney, then at the Bar, and others, gave opinions that the Legislature had the right to authorize the rails. It is alleged that several distinguished counsel on behalf of the monopoly, maintained their views. But, has New Jersey the right to make a wa^iVZ contract with her own ayents, and give them a monopoly, to do by indirection that which she has no power to do directly, and tax the citizens and merchandise of other States in transition across her soil ? A principle is worthless unless it will bear being pushed home. If that State, by such a contract, too sacred to be impaired, may grant a monopoly of any kind of road, or of any means of through transportation, then, she may monopolize and fetter all sorts of conveyance, even by horses, or by human limbs. If she can impose a tax of sixty cents, why not sixty dollars ? Why may she not load to interdic- tion all throuijli transportation, and drive New Yorkers and Philadelphian«, through winter's snow and ice, across the Alleghanies, or around by sea ? Under the National constitution, no State possesses such authority. The maintenance of public highways was part of the " trinoda nccessi'as" uj. comm., 1 of ancient law, from which no condition or estate could be exempt. Shall and 2. this vital public necessity, the right of way, be restricted, fanned, monopo- lized and taxed by the local representatives appointed to protect, not sell the public rights ? It has been adjudged by the Supreme Court of the United States, that a State Legislature may take the franchises of a bridge corporation, for public ^_ Rop'orts p'. use, upon making compensation. The state power to grant such a local .^07, A. D. franchise, not beinj icithin the j^urview of the. IQth section of art. 1 of the ^*'^^- U. S. Constitution, was aiiirmcd. But this is not a local matter. The people of the whole State, and of the United States, are interested, and have rights which no State Legislature has authority to grant away. If such a contract is not valid, then it may be set aside without compensation. Franchises arc grantable for public good, not merely fur private emolu- ment; and that public good is not to be mc-asured simply by the good of New Jersey and her monopolists, and to be directed against the rest of the NATION. When fairly tested in the Court of last resort, it will probably be found that no such power of taxation of the right of way exists in the Note. — Impositions on the right of way at best savor of the dark ages and of bar- barism. The practice may have been imported from Arabia, where, very likely, it originated. The claim, however, exercised alike by Jersej^ monopolists and by Arabs, across their several sand barrens, does not rest upon the same foundation. If the Bedouin method of levying "transit duties" upon "strangers and persons not living in" Arabia, should be supposed to exhibit less cunnin. 18, part 1. LawB of N. J. suplementary to charter. surer, and the Attorney General. It was laid before the Legislature in 1840. A Joint Committee was appointed, who reported March 8, 1841, (p. 8) : " The Committee cannot perceive that either the letter or the spirit of the " law justifies the construction contended for by the Companies." They reported a resolution, authorizing the Attorney General to employ addi- tional counsel, and to prosecute them. (p. 12.) The whole case was published by the Legislature. Finding that a judicial decision would inevitably be against them, the Joint monopolies compromised with the State, and paid the transit duties thus evaded. A joint resolution of the New Jersey Legislature, March 10, 1842 — ac- cepted by the Companies under seal, October 3, 1842 — regulates and finally adjusts the transit duty at ten cents on every passenger, and fifteen cents a ton on all merchandise carried across the State, from the Delaware to the Raritan, no matter how. And the State of New Jersey has ever since enjoyed her imposts upon " strangers, and persons not living in New " Jersey." It has been heretofore shown that this impost is irreconcilable with the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. If a State has a right to levy ten cents on every passenger across her territory, she has a right to levy ten hundred, or still higher transit duties, and may effectually bar all intercourse among the people of the several States. That it should have been imposed by New Jersej'^, and tamely acquiesced in so many years by other States, is most extraordinary. The transit duties and other considerations for the monopoly granted to the companies, yield the State a large amount of annual revenue. *' The State of New Jersey," says the Directors' address of 1846, (p. 15,) " without ever having paid one dollar, has derived from her lessees and partners in this mo- nopoly, two thousand shares of stock, worth nearly two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ; and has received in transit duties and dividends up to the first of January last (184(3), five hundred and thirty-one thousand two hun- dred and thirteen dollars," which, says the address, (page 16), " is derived almost exclusivel// from strangers and jier sons not living in New Jersey." From January 1, 1846, to the close of 1851, the further revenue derived by New Jersey from these sources, by her official documents, appears to have amounted to $546,432, 55. In their address of March, 1846, the joint board declare that " the State's share in transit duties, and dividends, of every three dollars, net money re- ceived for through passengers, is sixty cents." It is obvious that without these transit duties, and without this monopoly, in which the State is also a partner, the through fares might be reduced twenty per cent., and with the same result to the companies. But the transit duties are light in amount compared with the discriminating fares and freights between through and way transportation. This practical discrimination in favor of the citizens of their own State, rests upon undeniable evidence.* The address of the joint board of Directors (signed by them all) June 11, 1848, at A., page 27, contains a " Statement of the business of the Cam- " den and Amboy Railroad, and its branches, and Philadelphia and Trenton " Railroad, for the month of May, 1848, wherein it is declared that, — Address of the joint hoard of di- rectors to the people of N. J., March, 1846, p. 15. Director's ad. dress 1846, page 18. * Note. — The innocent readiness of Jerseymen to tax Pennsylvanians, is exempli- fied in a ludicrous manner, in the Prospectus of the "Camden and Atlantic Railroad," from Camden to Absecom. See Engineer's Report, June 24, 1852. At p. 11, an esti- mate is furnished of 82,000 passengers [Jerseymen, see p. 9), at $1. $32,000 20,000 visiters to the beach, [Philadelphians, p. 11), at $1. 50. $30,000 The Engineer says, at page 12, the work " appeals in the strongest terms to Phila- delphia and her business men." DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST STRANGERS. 18 22,8661 throwjli passengers were carried at the average charge cts. milla. , per mile, of three cents, 5j mills, '6 b^ 34,9'24^ icni/ passrjif/ers were carried at the average charge per mile, of one cent! ^ mills, 1 7} Difference, (more than double), 1. 8. In the State Director's Report for 1849, (published in 1850,) at page 25, Statement F. appended, it is stated by Edwin A. Stevens, Superintendent, that " On the roads of the United Companies, the first class of through pas- " sengers average 3.31 cents per mile, (^wai/ passengers average 1.98 cents;) " second class 2.60 cents ; and third class 1,66 cents per mile." No classi- fication of way fares seems to be made. Mr. Stevens adds. " The way fares, " between places where there is a large local business, may he reduced vjith " advantage, as the husiness increases, where it does not interfere with the " thi'oiigh fares." The political advantage to be gained is easily understood. On freights the discrimination was still greater. For the transportation of „ merchandise between New York and Philadelphia, the toll charged upon the p^j-t i, p. b'A. Railroad, to the Napoleon line, (who exacted of shippers oftentimes enor- Report 1850, mously and disproportionately more) up to 1846 was eight cents a ton per appx., B. (J. mile, makint' seven dollars and sixty-four cents for the whole distance. But ^- '^}^°^^' . son ) t). y« for the " transportation of icay merchandise the Railroad Company was to ^^ '„ "g ' receive just one-half of the above stated rates." Since 1846 the rates have Freeman', been professedly modified, but the same proportion between through and appx., ps. 126- way freight was still preserved. ^' The amount thus obtained annually from " persons not living in New Jersey " is large. There were in 1850, three hundred and forty-five thou- tor A-eport" sand four hundred and twenty-five through passengers ; of whom one-half for 1850. p. probably were of the 1st class. The through fares (although now reduced i*'^- published from the illegal charge of four dollars to three, upon the most productive road in the Union, are still about fifty per cent, higher than the rates else- where for similar or better accommodation. It appears by the report of J. C. G. Kennedy, Esq., of the United States Census Office, Washington, g^^ penn. March 1, 1852, that, " In New England, the average price per mile for the inquirer, conveyance of passengers is under two cents ; from New York to Boston it ilrtrcli 17, is two and four-tenths ; from New York to Philadelphia three and four- tenths." The Hudson River Rail Road, (not made over level sand, but often cut through solid rock, and built on causeways in the river,) made at vast ex- pense, charges for fares from New Y'ork to Albany, 150 miles, 81.50, and the running time is four hours. Speed 37 i miles per hour. The New Jersey monopolies for about 88 or 90 miles* distance, occupy nearly five hours, and the charge is noiv three dollars. Why should there not be a safe double track of railroad between Phila- delphia and New York ; through trains running in three hours, at intervals of two ; carrying, comfortably, a thousand passengers a day, at the charge of a dollar, or a dollar and a half ? ILLEGAL FARES — FOUR DOLLARS. The " consolidated companies " charged from 1835 to 1849 an illegal addition of one dollar to the fare of the through passengers by their princi- pal lines, run upon the Philadelphia and Trenton Kail Road. The act of 15th February, 1831, supplementary to their charter, provides : * DiSTUBNELL statcs the distances thus : Jersey City Ferry ... 1 mile. New Jersey Rail Road, - - - 30 New Brunswick and Trenton, - - 29 Philadelphia and Trenton, (26, & 2.) - 28 88 miles. 14 ILLEGAL $4 FARES. Laws K J. '* It shall not be lawful for the said companies to charge more than three re-published dollars for the transportation of passengers from and to the cities of New ]8«,appx., York and Philadelphia." page o . -^^ section 2, of the act of March 2, 1832, they were invested with the ah- Ib. p. 32. solute monn])oly of railroad through iranqjortation ; being, by the act of 1831, prohibited from charging 77iore than three dollars for that traiuportation. Neither the monopoly nor the prohibition are confined to any particular road. Yet from 1835 to 1849, they charged four dollars fare on the lines which ■•loit for 1849 they ran over the Philadelphia and Trenton branch of their roads; and p. 6. State having an arrangement that two-thirds of their through passengers should Director's re- j^g transported by this route, the number of those that paid the four dollars port for ISjO, ^ i r ^ pao-e 4. Also, must have been very great. Ile"port 1850. This arrangement about the passengers was made with the Philadelphia J. Morrell, ^^(j Trenton Rail Road and with the New Jersey Rail Road Company, who a-ppi--, P- a • j^j^^^g became agents and partners with the monopolies. The date of the first contract is not given, but the New Jersey Commissioners' Report of 1850, part 2, p. 86, states, that the last agreement is dated x\pril 1, 18-13, and is still in force. " By the the 4th article, ^1 was established as the fare for first " class through passengers, and §3 for second class ;" (laborers and negro cars.) The commissioners in tLis report have published parts only of this agreement. No doubt the icliole would have been interesting. The fact Report 1850, that two-thirds of the travellers were to be compelled to take this line, part 2, p. 80. appears by so much of the IGth article as the New Jersey Commissioners have given. " The joint companies guarantee that not less than two-thirds " of the whole aggregate number of through passen<;ers by both routes, " (that is, by way of Amboy, and by way of New Brunswick,) shall be " carried by the lines by this agreement established, by way of New <' Brunswick." The manner in which the monopolies contrived to comply with this agree- ment, and force passengers to take the four dollar line, by the Philadelphia and Trenton Rail Road, must be fresh in the recollection of most citizens of New York and Philadelphia. There was, to be sure, a pretended compliance with the law. They charged only $3 on the Camden and Amboy lines. But these were run at unreasonable hours, in inferior cars, with bad accommodations, purposely inconvenient, slow and dilatory, and there were other annoyances. Under such compulsion the mass of travellers adopted the four dollar route. There can be little doubt that if their formal proposition to the legisla- < lommit'tee. ^ure in 1836 had been successful, to advance the through fares by day to .Tan. 23, 1836, four, and at night to five dollars, in which offer they allege (p. 19) they p. 19, p. 29. u iiave done all that the most rigid patriotism could require," the same system would have been put in operation to prevent New Yorkers and Philadelphians from travelling by day.* In all the " State Directors' Reports" published from 1835 to 1850, the number of passengers who paid the four dollar fares is carefully sup- presssed. The three dollar fares on the Camden and Amboy lines are ostentatiously given. In the Joint Board of Directors' Address, June 11, 1848, at page 27, may be found the only published statement, in figures, Address June that can afford any basis for estimates. It is there avowed that for the 31,1848. p.2T. mouth of May, lb48, O.OTOI through passengers were carried at upl. If RL^porTlsso," ^^^^ iiionth is a fair average of the rest of the year, for which no statement part 2, ps. 86- has been published, the illegal excess for the year 1848 exceeded 8108,000 ; 7- and for the thirteen or fourteen years must have been between one and two millions of dollars. It was alleged that these passengers were carried ou * The long dissatisfaction of the public with their treatment upon the companies' roads is a matter that does not admit of much documentary evidence. Sometimes facts are published. For instance, in Niles' Register, May, 1835, vol. 48, p. 202, may be found under the head of Live Lumber, a tale of burnt baggage, told by the passengers. DEFAULTERS TO NEW JERSEY. 15 the Philadelphia and Trenton lines, and not upon the Camden and Amboy road. These monstrous profits at last attracted the attention of the State. By joint resolution of the New Jersey Legislature, March 10, 1842, the provisions of which were accepted, hy agreement, under seal, Oct. 3, 1842, I''?,^,^"'^'^':'^" by the Presidents and secretaries of the joint board, and of the canal and p^ 46, '47, ' railroad companies, it was enacted, and agreed that "The treasurer of this '* State shall receive and collect from the said companies the one-half of any ^'sum over three dollars they may charge for each passenger carried on any " of the radroads of the said companies to and from the cities of Netv York " and Philadelphia, in addition to the transit duties before mentioned," kc. Under this law, and sealed agreement, the State of New Jersey has never received one dollar of the tax thus specifically imposed. The pretext upon which it has been avoided, — that the four dollar pas- sengers were not carried entirely " on the railroads of the said companies," but partly upon the Philadelphia and Trenton Rail Road, will hardly avail, jjereinafter It will be seen hereafter they object to pay the tax to Pennsylvania, because at p. 25. the money was not earned upon this road, but by the other companies. But, if the transportation were on " any of the radroads of the said companies," (for instance, the branch road from Trenton to New Brunswick,) it was enough. They owned three roads, the Camden and Amboy, the Branch Road, and substantially the Philadelphia and Trenton. Was it intended to use words that had no meaning? There neither was, nor ever will be, a continuous road from Philadelphia Report 1850, to New York. The Hudson is to be crossed. Report of ^'''' The word entirely is neither in the law, nor in the bond. The companies Committee held the monopoly of through transportation. The New Jersey Rail Road to Stockhold- Company was their agent and j^artner, by express agreement, lending their i^3g^^"\l road and conveyances for this through transportation. The Philadelphia 17. 23. 27. 29. and Trenton Road virtually belonged to them; insomuch that in 183G they Directors' Re- absolutely offered to sell this Pennsylvania Road to the State of New Jersey. P"""' ^^^^' P- It was not merely their stock, or the control, but the road itself thai was statement by offered. In theii; official reports, 1836 and 1840, this road is ranked E. A. Steven's, among their " appendages." The same engines and cars were run through, "^'^n^a^ "ix' These chiefly belonged to the monopolies and bore their name. p] lis'.''^^^^ ' Every elementary principle of legal construction applicable either to deeds or statutes di-scountenances the evasion. Yv'ords must have meaning Blackstone, and effect. Intention must govern. Nothing can favor the avoidance of the vols. 1 and 2. impost but a miserable perversion, which would be wholly unsuccessful in any honest court of justice. From March 1842 to late in 1849, seven years and some months, the mono- polists were legally bound to share with the state " one half of any sum over three dollars they might charge" for through transportation. At the rate .^ ^^ of 6108,000 per annum, for 7J years, it would amount to $792,000. drc7s oTi84.'', One half of which, due to the State, would be 390,000. Statement A. And, interest thereupon, averaging say from 1846 — six years, would be 142,560. 5538,560. The State of New Jersey, in her legislative, judicial and executive departments, and in her congressional representation, being now politically reduced to a condition of helpless dependency upon the monopolists, must be disenthralled before this debt can be collected. Now that it is exposed to public notice, it would not be surprising if the defaulters should procure some determination or settlement upon their own terms, or a release of the claim for some trivial consideration. 16 THE NAPOLEON LINE. The Napoleon Line. Keport is.-io, In the history of these monopolies, perhaps nothing is more remarkable part 2, p. 91. ^.j^^n their connexion with the " New Brunswick steamboat and canal trans- portation company." Bill in chaa- This New Brunswick company, better known as the " Napoleon line," -•ery, J. D. was chartered by the Legislature of New Jersey, in January, 1831. The Hagar vs. E. original capital paid was §25,000, in 200 shares of $125 each. John D. •il' Marcr25! Hagar, Sec'retary, states in substance, it was established for the transporta- isVr. " ' tion of passengers and freight between New Brunswick and New York. Answer to" do. Q^jjgy commenced with one steamboat. In a few months, when it had been found to be a profitable enterprise, " intimations were given out that the " new company must prepare for a severe opposition, with a reduction of fare " to a nominal sum, by the boats of the " Union line," owned by Edwin A. " Stevens and associates. Accompanied with these threats, came overtures '< for the purchase of a majority of the stock of the company. In consider- "ation of its feeble finances, the proposition for purchase was acceded to, " and transfers of a majority of the stock were accordingly made to Edwin A. "Stevens, and others; and in May, 1831, a new Board of Directors was "chosen." .;. D. Hagar's " The business increased from year to year. Dividends of thirty and forty pamphlet, a pgj. ^gnt. were declared and paid. In 1834 an increase of the capital was .Jan. 13, 1848, ^^ proposed by Mr. Stevens for a canal transportation business. Of the new "stock thus created (says BIr. Hagar) "31essrs. Stevens and company mo- "destly took the whole." Report ISon, The N. J. Commissioners' Report of 1850, says, "other persons'.interested pan 2, ps. 91- in the joint companies became afterwards owners of part of the said majority ^- of stock, and it appears to have been under tlie control of persons who were directors of both those companies from 1835 to the present time." The Stockholders of the Napoleon Company were as follows. Shares. Shares. R. L. & E. A. Stevens, 50 TTra. Cook, -4 Robert F. Stockton, 22 A. S. Nielson, . 4 J. Potter, 20 Alfred Decker, 2 Jas. Nielson, 12 J. Lefevre, (U. L.) 2 W. J. Watson, (U. L.) 10 A. Jenkins, (U. L.) 2 J. Bishop, 8 Geo. Abbe, (U. L.) 2 10 John D. Hagar, 8 M. C. Jenkins, (U. L.) 2 Isaac Fisher, 7 J. D. Hoagland, 2 Lawrence Fisher, 6 Ira Bliss, 1 Miles C. Smith, 7 J. Hatfield, 1 Benj'n Fish, (U. L.) 6 Wm. Gulick, (U. L.) 1 John R. Thomson, 5 J. McKnight, (C. L.) 1 J. H. Dulles, (U. L.) 5 Geo. Richmond, 1 John C. Stevens, 4 F. Richmond, 1 Philip Kipp, 4 Wm. McKnight, (C. L.) 1 The above list is extracted from J. D. Ilagar's Bill in chancery, sworn to March 25th, 1847. Edwin A. Stevens, in his answer, sworn to April 16th, 1847, (p. 7.) ad- mits it to be correct, and that with the exception of Philip Kipp and others of the Citizens and Union line, all the rest were connected with the Joint Companies. Of this association Miles C Smith was President, A. S. Nielson, Trea- surer, and John D. Hagar, originally Secretary. The directors of the consolidated companies, authorized one of their num- ber, Mr. Stevens, "to consummate an arrangement with the New Bruns- wick steamboat company for the transportation of merchandise over the Camden and Amboy Railroad " (Hagar's bill vs. Stevens et al and an- swer 1847) ; and the same Mr. Stevens being the representative of the New INCREASING CHARGES. — AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY. 17 Brunswick company, tbe arrangement was consummated on terms mutually satisfactory. It took effect Jan. 1, 1835. Of those terms, as given in the legislative investigation of 1850, some of the most pertinent are here ex- tracted : The railroad company was to furnish all the necessary facilities, such as Report of cars, enn-ines, fuel, and firemen; and the New Brunswick company was not ]SaO, pan 1, required to embark any capital in the business. "The latter company was !'• ^^• to pay the former seven dollars and sixty-four cents a ton for the transpor- tation of merchandise between New York and Philadelphia, being at the appx^.!^p. 127. rate of eight cents a ton per mile, and for the transportation of way mer- chandise, just one-half of the above stated rates." "'J he basis of this arrangement," says the legislative investigation, "was Report ^,f evidently the highest rate allowed by the charter to be charged for tolls and ]850, part 2. transportation. The joint companies received the full amount named in their P- ^^• charter without deductions for the expenses of the receipt or delivery of See also part goods, or for the losses and damages incident to the business; and they also ' ^'' " . appear to have considered that they were relieved from the legal obligations vcstigation' which would have attached to them as common carriers." " Under this con- 1818, ps. 5U, tract the New Brunswick company forwarded all the merchandise carried 51, and 52^ by over the railroad from January 1st, 1835, to April 1st, 18-lG, and charged ^Xni'-Pen-' shippers various prices, generally exceeding seven dollars and sixty-four cents nington, and per ton, for the through freight. It is therefore obvious that the New Bruns- •-'• l^«rke, wick company must have received much more for the transportation of mer- chandise than eight cents per ton per mile (the legal rate). What the whole p^g .j ^g^o amount of that excess has been, or what disposition has been made of it, we part 2, p. 94. (the commissioners) have not inquired, nor have we deemed it our duty to inquire." The motive for the arrangement between the companies is thus explained ib. appx., by Wm. H. Gatzmer in his evidence on oath before the committee of in- 125-0. vestigation. This explanation is more positively corroborated by J. R. x^ompsonV Thompson, the secretary of the joint board. evidence, re- " I think it very likely that the joint companies also have left the trans- port 1850, p. portation on the railroad to be done by the Napoleon company, from the ^gp Jt^iglo.' idea that the Napoleon company were not limited hy any restrictions as to pa,-t i, ps. " the rate of charges for freight or otherwise, and that the railroad company 52-3. was entitled to charge them the full amount of tolls expressed in the char- ,^g*g''to^r*fre^'" ter, without expense to themselves. They also deemed it important to portofisjs themselves to be free from the liability of common carriers, the whole re- for l8-t7, p. sponsibility of which, it was supposed by this arrangement, was borne by ^^^^ ^^^ ^g^^ the Napoleon company." p. 17. Mr. John R. Thompson, Secretary of the Joint Board in his testimony Also for 1849, states openly. ^' '.-.Q^n. r^ ^ ■ ■ ■, . /. , ., -1 c T • I • xi 1 • Report 1850, " One prmcipal motive of the railroad company tor relinquishing the busi- p^rt 1, p. 54, " ness of transportation on the road, and turning it over to the New Bruns- " wick company was to avoid the responsibility for losses and damages which " the situation of common carriers necessarily incurs." " App. to Keport, 1850, p. 13. — Again, at p. 17, he says, " It was thought extremely impru- " dent on the part of the joint companies to incur" (among other things) "the responsibility of carriers." The commissioners, Robertson, Hulme and Wurts (in their Report 1850, part 1. p. 53.) state these facts, and add " We do not consider it " within our province to express any opinion with respect to the policy, pro- " priety, or legality of the arrangement." They might have used stronger language, but they say in general conclu- sion upon the whole investigation, (part 2, p. 100.) " Our leading object " was to present the facts truly, without color or disguise, rather than to " draw conclusions from them." Thus from 1835 to 1846, under an agreement made by the directors of the consolidated companies virtually with themselves, the restrictions on freight, imposed by their charters, were evaded. 18 CLOSE CORPORATION. — PROFITS. — PROSECUTION, Answer in chancery Apr. 16, 1847, p. 25, Report 1850, pavt 2, p. 9-4. II ii gar's evi- dence, report 1850, appx., 172. llag.ar's ])»mphlet -Jan. 13, 184S, p. 8. Eill in ehan- oery N. J., Hagar vs. Stevens et al., March 25, 1847. .1. D. Hagar vs. Stevens, Neilson & Thompson ; 2d bill in chancery, Oct. 1, 1850. Sept. 1852. The amount of the "excess" (as the report of 1850 terms it) charged over the legal freights, may be imagined from the enormous amount of mer- chandise transported by the Napoleon company, which, prior to the year 1846, sometimes (say Messrs. Stevens, Neilson, and Thompson) "■ exceeded one hundred millions in value in a single year." On most of which, from January 1, 1835, to April 1, 1846, the New Brunswick company charged shippers various prices, by the railroad, generally exceeding seven dollars and sixty-four cents per ton for through freight. The office of common carriers being thus thrown upon the Napoleon Line, which was chiefly owned by and composed of the officers of the monopolies, it will appear hereafter how they effected their double purpose of increasing charges and evading responsibility. The management of the Napoleon company seems to have been chiefly in the hands of Mr. E. A. Stevens. " We," says Mr. J. D. Hagar, speaking (under oath) of himself and several of the stockholders, " made application to Mr. Stevens for an expose of the affairs of the company ; and he replied that it could not be done ; that the books could not be exhibited ; that was his way of doing business; he managed the company as a close corporation." And Mr. Stevens, in his answer in chancery, swears, (page 31) " it was im- portant to the interests of the stockholders that the business and profits should not be made public." No full meetings of the stockholders (says Mr. Hagar) were held between 1838 and 1847. Even the president of the company and the treasurer were not acquainted with its business. Mr. Hagar had been accustomed to dividends of forty per cent, and now receiving onli/ sixteen, he naturally became dissatisfied. He instituted pro- ceedings in Chancery against Edwin A. Stevens, John R. Thomson and James Neilson, Directors, alleging violations of trust, and demanding an account. To settle this chancery suit, an account in January, 1848, was stated on behalf of the company, and each share of the stock was estimated to be worth $1,455 97. This amount per share was actually paid to Mr. Hagar for the shares held by him. Current dividends had been made from 1831 to 1847, for the first four years of forty per cent, per annum, and afterwards of sixteen per cent, per annum. There is reason to believe that these profits and this accumulation were under estimated, if an opinion can be formed from the subsequent pro- ceedings, at the suit of Mr. Hagar against the same defendants. In consequence of the publication of facts in the New Jersey Commis- sioners' Report of 1850, and the testimony of the officers, clerks and agents of the companies, which Mr. Hagar alleges to be diff"erent from the repre- sentations made to him at the time of the settlement in 1848, he brought a second Bill in Chancery in October, 1850, against the same defendants for further account. It would occupy too much space to state the particular charges in the plaintiff's bill. It is sworn to, Oct. 1, 1850, by Mr. Hagar, that " he be- lieves them to be true." The specific items of alleged overcharge of expen- ditures and under-statement of receipts amount to nearly a million of dollars, and the other general charges amount to about a million and a quarter ad- ditional, of the whole of which the plaintiff demanded his share. No answer to this Bill was filed by the defendants. In 1852, Mr. Hagar discon- tinued his proceedings before the State Tribunal, and recommenced his action by bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States. This third bill in chancery relates to much the same subjects as the pre- ceding one, and the particular charges amount to more than two and a quarter millions of dollars. At the present date, no answer to this third bill has been filed. It is therefore only just to add (in the absence of explanation The New Jersey elections of 1851 gave the friends of the monopolists the con- trol of the State in her Executive and Legislative departments, with the Judicial and Congressional appointments and delegation. AVOIDING LIABILITY. — INCREASING CHARGES. 19 and 28. from the defendants) that no safe opinion can be formed of the correctness of any of the accusations and charges thus specifically made. But the whole proceedings suflBciently indicate extraordinary profits by the Napoleon line, upon a capital of only 850,000 : and their expenditures and receipts in the business of transportation certainly extended to many millions. Avoiding Responsibility. The transportation business of the consolidated companies being thus farmed out to the " New Brunswick company," the latter company itself operated through subordinate unincorporated nominal companies. The Union « Fictitious ' transportation line — The Merchants' line — The Swift sure line, kc, in whose Hagar's bill, names the bills of lading for merchandise received on freight were ordinarily P- ^l- given, and on whom the responsibility (such as it was) as common carriers name." An? was ultimately thrown. The motives for this extraordinary proceeding and wer, p. 13, the facts are placed, h// the oaths of the 2^arties themselves, beyond all contro- versy. The abuses that followed are remembered by many to their cost.* In the years 1847, '48 and '49, very many legal prosecutions for penalties were instituted against the companies for taking illegal tolls, all of them with- out substantial result. Peter Briggs' case was commenced inApril, 1847, and judgment being obtained against the companies, they took the ease to the State Siq)reme Court, where, in 1848, the judgment was affirmed. The monopo- lists then carried the cause to the Court of Errors and Apj^eals. In Octo- ber, 1850, this Court affirmed the judgment, and the defendants took the case to the United States Supreme Court at Washington, where it has not been determined. The charge of S7.64 toll per ton for through transporta- tion being decided by the State Courts to be illegal, the excess §2.76, was partially discontinued in 1849. It has been alleged on behalf of the companies that they have refunded upwards of one hundred thousand dollars of these overcharges. The New .Jersey State directors, Messrs. Milnor and Arrowsmitb, in their Report for 1851, dated .January 20th, 1852, at page 1, say, " The standing ^^ policy which they (the companies) have pursued, of cheapening and facili- " tating the transit of passengers and merchandise upon their works, has "been steadily maintained." Perhaps by way of ' gilding refined gold, and adding a perfume to this violet,' the monopolists procured the passage of an Act " relative to freights and transit duties on railroads in this State," approved March 24th, 1852, which covertly repeals the law determined in Briggs' case, and autho- rizes the companies to charge on any railroad within the State, " and on the routes continuous therewith to the termination thereof," by measurement ton, the very amount decided to be illegal. On the 1st April, 1846, the agreement between the Napoleon line and the Joint Companies was terminated for the reason alleged by Messrs. Ste- vens, Thomson and Nielson, that the compensation allowed to the Napoleon line " amounted to not more than an insurance on the property carried by "us, say $1 for every 834,000 value, and for which we have been respon- "sible." The New Jersey State Directors' Report for 1847, page 12, says, " the " directors of the Napoleon Company declined to transport the merchandise " for the Canal and Railroad Companies for the compensation they were " receiving, alleging, that, although the profits had yielded good dividends, "they were, for about 83000 a year, incurring responsibilities as common "carriers for more than 6100,000,000 in value of goods annually. This " they represented as wholly inadequate to the risk." Mr. John D. Hagar, Ex-Secretary, publishes another story. He says : Answer in chancery, p. * One instance may be given. In 1841, the barge Albany was negligently upset in the harbor of New York. The monopolists declined to acknowledge the owner- ship of the line. The injured parties were long without redress. At last they found a defendant and obtained a verdict, which is still resisted and contested in the court of last resort. 20 AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY. Answer in chancery, April 16," 1847, p. 27. Stevens' an- swer in chan- cery, April 16, 1847, p. 28. Datad Jan. 12, 1348. Dated Jan. 19, 1849. Dated Jan. 19, 1850. Charter of the Phila. and N. Y. Steam Trans, co. March 8, 1850. Penna. laws, p. 140 and 141. See State Di- rectors' re- port of 1847- 8, free list, ps. 29 and 30. Inveatigation 1848. Report 1850. "At a meeting of the stockholders of the Napoleon Company, March, 1846, held to dissolve the connexion, Mr. Miles C. Smith refused to jJi'esicIe. Mr. J. Neilson took the Chair. Mr. Stevens stated that the compensation received by the Company was insufficient — but," says Mr. Hagar, " it is " more than probable that the cause assigned by John R. Thomson, Esq., "to Mr. Smith, was in fact the real cause, viz., that the foreign stock- " holders of the Camden and Amboy Railroad Company made loud objec- " tions that the large earnings of the transportation line were given to the " Napoleon Company." [Hagar's "Narrative of the Organization of the Napoleon Company, &c." Febry. 1850, p. 9.] In 1846 the agreement being dissolved, for a short time the Railroad Com- pany themselves carried on the whole transportation business across the road. Messrs. Stevens, Thomson and Neilson swear, in their answer in Chan- cery, April 16, 1847, p. 28, "The Union Transportation Line is the " name under which the freighting business has been conducted on the said "railroad by the said Company." The " responsibility" being now upon the right parties, the State Direc- tors of the monopolies took the alarm, and it is interesting/ to find them quite as anxious as the Napoleon line, to get rid of it. In their Report for 1847, page 18, Mes.srs. Irick & Chetwood, State Di- rectors, say : " In looking at the large interest of the State as a stockholder in these " Companies, and in the accruing transit duties, and the immense hazard "which is run by the Companies in the millions in value of merchandise " transported by them as common carriers, it has occurred to the State Di- " rectors that some provision ought by law to be made to guard as far as " possible against the consequences of a heavy loss and liability. It is " stated that silks, laces, and other fine goods, to the amount of more than " half a million of dollars, have been transported in one of the steamboats of " the Companies in a single trip. " In case of destruction of the said goods by fire or otherwise, for which " the Companies should be held liable, the loss to the State and to the Stock- " holders would be severely felt ; and it is worthy the consideration of the "Legislature, whether some measures should not he adopted for the protection " of the parties.^' There is here no allusion whatever to the interests of the owners of the goods. They were " strangers, and persons not living in New Jersey." In the Report to the Legislature by the same State Directors for 1848, (page 17,) they renew the suggestion, and make some lame excuses, and some suggestions about protecting ih.^ 2)ubUc also." In their Report for 1849, the same officers say, (p. 15,) " The New " Brunswick Steamboat and Canal Transportation Company, (known as the " Napoleon Company) has ceased to have any connexion with the United " Companies, by a sale and transfer of all its boats and interest to indi- " viduals who are in no way interested in the Joint Companies." Any body who desires to know how this thing was accomplished may refer to the Charter of " The Philadelphia and New York Steam Trans- portation Company," incorporated by the State of Pennsylvania, March 8th, 1850. It will be interesting to observe the names of the corporators, and then to refer to the extensive " free list" of the Camden and Amboy Railroad Company, published in the State Directors' Report for 1847, pages 29 & 30, whereby it will appear that these gentlemen were all of them, clerks or agents of the joint monopolies. The State of New Jersey herself, has not altogether been satisfied with the monopolies erected under her own laws. Two several legislative investi- gations have been made. But the power and influence of the consolidated companies in New Jersey is beyond domestic control. The investigations resulted in a development of facts, but not in an arrest of the injustice done to citizens of Pennsylvania, New York, and of the United States. NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS. 21 In the Investigation of 1818, at page 21, the Commissi«(ners, Messrs. investigation King, Pennington and Parker, say : °f ^'"^ d%r* '< It is here to be observed, that the question of the expediency of the ^" ' " grants by the Legislature to the New Jersey Companies of an exclusive " privilege of railroad transportation across the State, or of any other ex- " elusive privileges, has not been suhmitted to us, and we therefore offer no ^^ opinion in regard to it." Again, the same gentlemen say, at page 6G : " It may be here remarked, that the Companies are stated to have charged ^^ higher rates of FARE and freight on the railroad than by law they are entitled to." " This is a subject not committed to us, and we THEREFORE HAVE NOT " CONSIDERED IT, AND CAN GIVE NO OPINION UPON IT." The Commissioners, Robertson, Hulme and WuRTS, in their Report of Report 1850. 1850, significantly declined the expression' of any opinion about the arrange- Part 1. P- ^^• ment with the Napoleon line, except to condemn the system of special con- g^^ ireVeiube- tracts. And in final conclusion, (p. 100,) declare that their "leading object fore, p. 17. " was, to present the facts, truly, without color or disguise, rather than to " draw conclusions from them." The public are under some obligations to these gentlemen for the facts, and are able to draw their own conclusions. In New Jersey, however, the dissatisfaction with the monopoly has been such that the companies have been forced to excuse their privileges. This has been done by appealing to State pride and State interest. "These (say they in their address of 1848, speaking of their charters) Address June these are the statutes of a sovereign State— we are her citizens — she knows ^^'^^^^^^^* P^' ^ how to preserve her laws inviolate. She never falters in her duty to her sons." And in their address of 1846, they reproach "a strong disposition " on the part of many of our own citizens (of New Jersey) to embarass the "operations of their oicn agents and partners, and to abate rather than in- " crease their prosperity. This might be understood, if the receipts of the joint board of " companies were derived from their own citizens, or were regarded as taxes ^'.'"''"^Yslg^*^' " upon them. But they are derived almost exclusively from strangers, and ^^^^^ ' ^' " persons not living in New Jersey." This tone seems to infect the State functionaries themselves. "New Report for Jersey" (say the State Directors in their report, Jan. 12, 1848) " may 1847, p. 17. " well be proud of her position. While other States, in carrying out their ".sytems of internal improvements, have been embarrassed, and in many " instances driven to repudiation, she, without incurring the responsibility " of a single dollar, has abundant means for all present purposes." How ftvr this peculiar style of defence should recommend these consolidated mono- polies to the favorable consideration of the people and the Legislature of Pennsylvania, need not now be enlarged upon. Pennsylvania, too liberal, was once reduced to temporary embarrass- ment, but never to repudiation. She is not supported by taxes upon her neighbors. The citizens of Philadelphia have frequently complained of the illegal burdens on their intercourse with New York. In the year 1848, a strong memorial to Congress, of her merchants and business men, a.sked the inter- position of the National Government. The memorialists recited some of the grievances mentioned in these pages, and declaring that they saw no prospect of relief from any action within the State of New Jersey, they prayed for a national survey of a Post Road between Philadelphia and New York, to be retained under the control of the United States, and used for the construction of a rail road. Many reasons were urged in favor of the work. This document was adopted by a Committee (appointed at a meeting held at the ofBce of the Board of Trade) consisting of the following gentlemen : 22 MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS. Thomas C. Rockhill, William D. Lewis, Hulings Cowperthwaite, Abraham Hart, Joseph E,. Evans, George Rundle, Charles Megarge, John Tiers, S. Morris Wain, Franklin Piatt, C W. Churchman, J. W. Ashmead, Gideon Scull, W. E. Whelan, John W. Field, William Wurts, A. Miller, John Grigg, George R. Justice, Robert Toland, H. C. Carey, E. D. lugraham, Charles Miller, J. S. Riddle, Henry Horn. Tn reference to this memorial, the Joint Board of Directors, in their address of June 11, 1848, say to the people of New Jersey — "When Ari Iress 1848 ''foreign influences are invoked to commence a crusade against the institu- p. 6, " tions of the State — destroy the prosperity of her citizens, and abolish her "revenue, — the time seems to have come when the victims proposed to be "first ofi"ered upon the altar are furnished with a proper occasion to speak " in their defence." Accordingly at p. 23, they brand as a "falsehood," the statement "that "New Jersey imposes a tax upon the citizens of other States for travelling " on her railroads." " In all the reports, in every paper emanating from " them, it has everywhere been mentioned as a tax imposed tq)oii the com- '^ panies, and not vpon the passengers." Again at p. 25, they say, " To lie down and be trampled upon, or to "stand silently by, and listen to the storm of vituperation and abase, which "is raised for the ultimate purpose o{ pi under in r/ them, at the same time of "character and of property, is as far from their duty, as it is from their "disposition." Address 18-16, It is only fair to hear them in their own defence. But, if undeniable p. 12 and 16. facts are not stronger than v:ords, — their own language, used two years before, may be quoted in reply by " strangers and persons nox living " IN New Jersey." The pretence about taxing the companies only, and not the passengers, is a miserable mockery j and the Philadelphia Memorialists might well ask, " Who are the plunderers ?" In restraining this confederacy of corporations, the most extensive and powerful that has ever existed in this country, difl&culties may appear in the way of private effort and of legislation, but the case is not beyond a remedy. Their charters are the statutes of another State, and cannot be touched. But the companies themselves have come upon our soil — have thrust them- selves within our jurisdiction ; they transact extensive business in Pennsyl- vania — they have branches here. Those branches and that business are amenable to our legislation. That the Trenton and Philadelphia railroad company/, and the Camden and Philadelphia steamboat ferry company are virtually branches of the consolidated companies, is sufficiently manifest. Report 1850, In respect to the Philadelphia and Trenton railroad company, the agree- ITs/' ^^' '^^ ™^°*' ^^ ^P^^^ '^"' ^^^^' stated in the preamble to be intended for the amalgamation or consolidation of the stocks, proves the connection of the three companies. The operative clauses are here transcribed : "Now this Indenture made this 22d day of April, A. D., 1836, between the President and Directors of the Delaware and Raritan Canal and the Camden and Amboy Railroad and Transportation Companies, parties of the one part, and the President and Directors of the Trenton and Philadelphia Rail Road Company, party of the other part, Witnesseth, that the said par- ties for themselves and their successors, severally, do hereby covenant and PHILADELPHIA AND TRENTON COMPANY DEFAULTERS. 28 agree, and each with the other, and their and each of their successors, that from and after the first day of June next ensuing, during and until the expiration of their said charters, respectively, the clear profits arising from the stock of the said companies shall be divided among the stockholders of the said companies, share and share alike." Notwithstanding this " amalgamation," it is remarkable that there has j^Morr'eV'^ been a difference in the nominal amounts of the dividends declared by the Sec'y. companies only, but there has been no difi"erence in the amount of profits Report 1850. actually received or appropriated. aud^iGi" ^^^ Tlie folloioing is from the Philadelphia Eoenincj Bulletin. OFFICE PHILADA. AND TRENTON R. R. CO., ) Philada., 12th Jan. 1852. J (15^ Notice. — The Directors have this day declared a dividend of four per cent, from the profits of the company for six months, payable to the stockholders or their legal representatives, on and after the ITth instant, at the otfice of this company. The stockholders will also receive one per cent, from the Camden and Amboy Rail Road and Transportation Company, at their ofiice, for their interest in said company. J. MORRELL, Sec'y. Mr. James Morrell, Secretary, before the N. J. Commissioners, swears Report isso. "The dividends for the last few years have been eight per cent, per annum, appx., p. 161. " which have all been paid over semi annually as declared. We draio an "order in favor of each of our stockholders separately on the C. and A. " Railroad Company for the difference between our dividends and theirs, " so as to equalize the dividends of the stock of both companies. This dif- ^^ference has been two per cent, every six months, for some time past." That is to say, making tioelve per cent, per annum. The Pennsylvania charter of the Philadelphia and Trenton Rail Road Company, at Sect. 15, contains these words : " Dividends of so much of the profits of the institution as shall appear Laws Penn- " advisable to Ihe managers shall be declared at least twice a year," &c. &c., sylvunia, " they shall in no case exceed the amount of the net profits of the com- ^^ 95" "' ^' ' 2)a7it/," &c. '' And provided further, That whenever the dividend shall exceed six per " cent, per annum, the said company shall pay a tax of evjht per cent, on " all such dividends above six per cent, into the treasury of this State for " the use of the commonwealth." No such tax had been paid to the State of Pennsylvania, except a trifling amount overlooked in the statement furnished by the Treasury department to the author when he exposed this evasion to the Commonwealth in April, 1852. In consequence of this exposure the State officers have recently collected from the companies a part of the sum withheld; a pittance, how- ever, compared to the amount really due. There has been obtained for taxes on dividends declared in in 183G, '37, '38, $3197.44 With interest thereupon, 2302.15 35499.59 This is a commentary on the assertion put forth, that they had j^aid all such taxes when due. There are two taxes payable by the Philadelphia and Trenton Rail Road Company to the State. First, under the charter, a tax of eight per cent, upon any excess of divi- I-a^s Penn- dend beyond six per cent. And also, under the general laws of 1840, '43, j^'g^g'^Q*' and '44, taxing corporations, " in addition to any taxes now imposed by ci2. ' ^' 24 DEFAULTERS TO PENNSYLVANIA. Laws 1843, 121. Laws 1843- 44, sec. 33, law," a rate of one half mill on every dollar of the value of the capital stock '' for every one per cent, of dividend, ov profit made or declared." Hence, by the plan of declaring a small dividend, (suppose eight per cent., and receiving four from the Camden and Amboy Company,) the Pennsylvania taxes are evaded in two ways. Suppose the Phihidelphia and Trenton Company gained only six per cent., then they were liable to pay 1. Under the charter, $ 2. Under the act of June, 1840, 3 mills per dollar on the capital, $999,200, $2997.60 But suppose they declared twelve per cent, dividend, then they should 1. By charter, 8 per cent, on 6 per cent, the excess. 6 per cent, on $999,200 is $59,952.00, of which 8 per cent, is, $4796.16 2. State tax, one half mill on every 1 per cent, is 6 mills on $999,200, or 5995.20 Total, per annum, 110,791.36 In 1836, the joint companies divided twelve per cent. The Philadelphia and Trenton Company paid no tax to Pennsylvania that year. They ought to have paid §4796.16. Nothing whatever appears to have been received from them until 1843, when they commenced paying the State tax on cor- porations, frittered down by the contrivance of small dividends. The sum payable to the State of Pennsylvania by the Philadelphia and Trenton Kail Road Company under their charter alone, estimated upon the dividends declared by the joint companies, from 1835 to Dec. 31, 1851, would amount in principal money to about $62,000.00 And interest thereupon, calculated from the dates when it ought to have been paid, would amount to about 23,176.00 Sep. 1852. The whole sum now paid upon this account reaches only $85,176.00 8,993.60 Report 1850, part 2, ps. 43 to 46, and p. 55. Appx., 160 and 161. See also State Directors' reps, subse- •juently. Balance due, $76,182.40 The dividends of the joint companies from 1836 to 1851, both inclusive, have amounted to 173 J per cent. — averaging something less than eleven- per cent, per annum, during sixteen years.* The profits of the Philadelphia and Trenton Company being the same, the State tax of one half mill for every one per cent, of ^^ profit viade" on their capital, (whether divided or not is unimportant here,) would average per annum, more than $5,495.60 During eleven years, (1841 to Jan. 1852,) the whole profits having been 122 per cent, the State tax thereupon would amount to about Of this, from 1843 to 1851, they have paid to the State about Deficit, about Interest upon this sum, averaging, suppose, yjye years, 560,951.20 38,000.00 $22,951.20 6,885.36 $29,836.56 * The dividends of the Joint Companies have been as follows: 1836, 12 per cent. 1841, 6 per cent. 1847, 12 per cent. 1837, 8 ' 1642, 6 1848, 12 " 1838, 10 ' 1843, 7 1849, 12 « 1839, 7 ' 1844, 8 1850, 10] " 20 J " 1840, 6 1 ' And extra. 8J ) * 1845, 9 And extra, 1846, 10 1851, 10 " EXCUSES. — IDENTITY OF INTERESTS. :lo It may, therefore, be estimated that the aggregate amount of taxes accru- \\i The act authorizinsc the construction of the canal through "Windmill Laws Penna., _,,, •i,*' -ii 1837-8, p. 25. Island substantially gave or recognized a charter. The act of April 11, 1840, (authorizing them to purchase §200,000 in ESCAPES TAXATION. — REAL ESTATE. 29 cost value of real estate in Philadelphia) reserves to the legislature " the " ri^ht to revoke, alter or amend (he charter of the said company." The act of 1843 gave them power to hold real estate to the value of 8100,000 additional. By the Pennsylvania laws of 1840, 1843, and 1844 taxing corporations, particularly by the declaratory act of 1843, " all joint stock associations, " whether created b}' &c., &c., or ichich may exist hij any color of law, for " the purpose of making profits upon which dividends have been, or shall " be declared," are made liable to taxation. By the 33d section of the act of April 19, 1844, '' the amount of tax " chargeable on the capital stock of all companies incorporated by, or under "any law of this commonwealth," which shall fail to make and declare any dividend or profit ; or shall make or declare less than six per cent, per annum, shall be ascertained by apprauemcat of the capital stock at its actual value in cash, and such companies shall pay a tax of three mills on every dollar of the value of the stock so appraised. It would thus appear that this ferry company is legally as well as justly indebted to the State of Pennsylvania, for arrears of taxes hitherto evaded. If estimated on §315,000 worth of real estate alone, since 1840, it would amount to more than eleven thousand dollars. The Real estate this company holds in the State of Pennsylvania, stands on a footing which raises more than a suspicion of complicity with the con- solidated companies. The State Director's Report for 1847, p. 10, after mentioning the coal lands held in Pennsylvania in trust for the joint companies, says : " The other real " estate of the said companies is represented to be only that used for their " regular business — including their interest in Walnut street property in " Philadeljjhia, and at Bristol, and the tcharves in Pennsylvania, which " are held in like trust as above mentioned, as the companies cannot hold " lands in that State." It is " all in the family." The monopolies " cannot hold lands in Penn- " sylvania," but her laws can be evaded and trampled upon. The ferry company, instead of declaring dividends^(never having declared but one) has invested her earnings in real estate. And that real estate, earned in a few years, on a capital of one hundred thousand dollars, now amounts to several hundreds of thousands. Whether this real estate is necessary for the purposes of her business, " and no more," according to the limitation of her New Jersey charter, or according to the true intent of the Pennsylvania acts of 1840 and 1843, need not here be examined. But ^00 P^"^*^^ ^^ those earnings belong to the consolidated companies, and Being vested in real estate will raise an implied trust in their favor. If really purchased out of earnings, it only proves the large participation of the ferry company in the excessive profits of the joint monopolies. If pur- chased with funds directly advanced (as early as 1836) by the consolidated companies, or parties on their behalf, it will be subject to a secret trust, and to escheat. Upon the whole, a majority of the stock of this ferry company being held in trust for the consolidated companies, it is completely under their control. It aids and abets and participates in their exclusive privileges. It shares in the discriminating fares and freights levied on the citizens of Pennsylvania. It is an agent assisting in their business ; a borrower of money and a pur- chaser of real estate for their use, in violation of law — and it ought to be held to the consequences. It is in the power of the Legislature to cancel the privileges of the Cam- den and Philadelphia ferry company. By the 6th section of the act authorizing the construction of the Canal through "Windmill Island, the right is expressly reserved. In the act of 1840, authorizing them to purchase real estate — " The Legislature hereby reserves " the right to revoke, alter, or amend the Charter ot the said Company, and Laws Penna., 1S40, ps. 287, 2.S8. Law.s Penna., ]Si;3, p. 395. Laws Penna., 1843, p. 121. Laws Penna. 1844, p. 498. Dated Jan. 12, 1848. But see here- inafter, p. 30. Report 1850, part 2, p. 73. II). appx., p. 123 to 125. State Direc- tor's report 1847, p. 10. Investigation 1848, p. 22. Report 1850, ps. 89 and 90. Also appx., p. 9. Answer in chancery E. A. Stevens, ps. 21 to 24. State Direc- tor's report for 1847, ps. 9 and 10. Report 1850, appx., ps. 9, also 122, 123, 124, and 125. See act 14th Feb. 1838, section 6. Laws 1837-8, ps. 28-9. 30 ESCHEAT LAW. — MONOPOLY. " this act, whenever they shall deem proper, in such manner however that " no injustice be done to the Company." Justice must be mutual. It has been seen that this Ferry Company in or about 183G, purchased real estate in Philadelphia to the amount of $140,000. In 1S40 they bought other property also with the funds of the monopolists, not for the purposes of the ferry, " to put it in a permanently good condition," but, for the benefit of those who advanced the money. They violated the Pennsylvania law, requiring them to file in sixty days an account of the expense of cutting the Canal, so that the County of Phila- delphia might take it, if they pleased, at cost, and declare it a public high- way. Other acts violating eveu the Constitution of Pennsylvania, could be proved against them if occasion offered. This New Jersey Ferry Company misuses and abuses her Pennsylvania franchises for the benefit of the New Jersey monopolists, and, taxing Pennsylvanians, herself escapes the taxation to which all Pennsylvania Corporations are subjected.* Laws Penna., 1840, p. 287, 2S8. IK 18.38, p. 25, 29. See Purdon or Dunlop. (J Howard, p. 507, 1848. Escheat Law of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania act of Assembly" of April 6, 1833, relating to the es- cheat of lands held by foreign Corporations, says : " Whereas it is contrary to the laws and policy of the State for any Cor- " poration to prevent or impede the circulation of landed property, from " man to man, without a license from the Commonwealth, and no Corpora- " tion either of this State, or of any other State, though lawfully incorpo- " rated or constituted, can, in any case, purchase lauds within this State, " either in its corporate name, or names of any person or persons whoraso- " ever, for its use directly or indirectly, without incurring the forfeiture of *' said lands to the Commonwealth, unless said purchase be sanctioned and " authorized by an act of the Legislature thereof, but every such Corpora- "tion, its feoffee or feoffees, hold and retain the same, subject to be divested " or dispossessed at any time by the Commonwealth, according to due course of '' law ;" — therefore, for further reasons given, provision is made for confis- cating such property. (Acts of 1832-33, p. 167.) Monopolies. From the State of New Jersey herself, justice to the rest of the Union may not be hoped for until she shall be disengaged from the coils thrown around her by this " gigantic, irresponsible and hydra-headed monopoly." An attempt was made in 1851, and repeated in 1852, in the New Jersey Legislature, to incorporate a Camden and Keyport Railroad Company. The object of the road was to connect the agricultural districts around Bur- lington county with New York and Philadelphia, and to open a new com- munication. The opposition was made on the ground of the sanctity of the exclusive privileges given to the Joint Companies. On the other hand it was shown, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, that Corpo- ration franchises are liable to be taken for public use, like other property upon making compensation. Nobody seemed to doubt the right of New Jersey to make a valid grant of such an exclusive monopoly. 5lr. Broicn, from Burlington, in his speech in the House of Assembly, spoke " of the " Directors and Stockholders of these Companies, the members of tiie bar em- " ployed or retained, or in some way welded to those corporations, and the vast *' crowd of politicians of all grades, who for interested or inscrutable reasons *' evince such deep concern in consummating all the schemes of these Com- " panics, and who are every where, like a tree of gloomy shade, snreading " its branches from Sussex to Cape May, and driving its roots into the " masses of society." " They are strongly suspected," said he, '< of direct or * In 1852, Gov. Biglev, upon grounds of public policy, vetoed an act of the Legisla- ture wliich authorized the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to hold $300,000 worth of real estate at their terminus in West Philadelphia. AGGRANDIZEMENT. — REMEDIES. 31 Report 1850, appx., p. 3G to 46. Stevens' Memorial. " indirect interference in the popular elections, and of intermeddling with " our legislation." The bill, by the exertions of the monopolists on both occasions, was de- feated by a very decided vote. These insatiable Companies are preparing for further aggrandizement. In Bordentow.n, Camden, Philadelphia, and elsewhere, they are vastly ex- tending their possessions. Besides their river property at Bristol., Tacony and Philadelphia, the monopolists own the only wharf at Trenton. At Bordentoini they possess the whole river wharf front. They have driven other steamboats to land at Whitehi!/., some two miles below, where also they own the principal wharf. The Burlington landing is chiefly in their hands. They have thirty acres of shore property in Camden, with five or six hundred feet of wharf, extensive piers, and perhaps 2000 feet of river front. And here the monopolists would be very much obliged to " the blind giant of Pennsylvania," if (at the expense of millions, — sufficient to build another Railway to New York,) the citizens of Philadelphia should be kind enough to be advised by them, — seek to deprive the owners of Windmill Island of their property, dig up its sand-bars, (a mile and a half in length, and in ten feet water, a thousand feet wide,) — blast its rocks, and place the materials on their Camden water lots, — leaving a shoal, dangerous indeed to shipping, but over which their steamboat the John Stevens, (badly as she steers,) might perhaps be able to turn, — but then, it would render their Camden estate worth an immensity to the monopolists, and would build up an untaxed rival to the Port of Philadelphia. The extensive business directly transacted in Pennsylvania by these con- solidated monopolies cannot be here detailed. They own eight steamboats on the waters of the Delaware, and as many on the waters of the Ilaritan. They are believed to be interested largely in other steamboats and other pro- perty on the Delaware. They have been engaged in mining coal in Schuyl- kill county, and were interested in coal boats to a large amount. They have been interested in running steam vessels in opposition to others. At their offices and depots in Philadelphia a large proportion of their receipts for fares and freights (including the very discriminations against our own citi- zens), is actually collected. Their officers and parties interested can be brought within Pennsylvania jurisdiction. Their monopoly is practically upon our soil, and it can be restrained or repressed by our laws. The consolidated monopolies themselves might be taxed upon their offices, their business and their estate in Pennsylvania. Their exorbitant freights and fares might be curtailed by legislation, and any infringement of such laws might be punished in our own courts. But it has been urged by their anxious advocates, and even threatened by the monopolists themselves, before a Committee of the Legislature, that any attempt at taxation by Pennsylvania would drive them across the river to New Jersey : that they would extend their road on their own side, and com- municate with Baltimore across the State of Delaware. In this way, to be sure, the insignificant trade and travel of Philadelphia, with her coal and iron, might he altogether avoided and distressed. The idle threat could not be executed. The attempt could be defeated. It would be impossible for them to take their business across the river, any- more than their real estate and their Philadelphia and Trenton Hail Ptoad, which, it is said, they want to extend along the wharves to Vine street, into the city of Philadelphia. The indispensable necessity of this road to them is well described and urged by John E,. Thomson, their secretary, in his testimony. After declaring the wise policy of its purchase, which avoided a disas- troiis opposition, he mentions the difficulties and obstructions by ice to the passage of the Delaware in winter, and says — "This road, therefore, fur- " nished a means (and the only one) by which at all seasons, and under " almost every conceivable circumstance, the intercourse between the great "cities would not be interrupted.". Report 1850, appx., 123. Report 1850, appx., 124. Report 1850, appx., p. 30. Also report 1850, p. 99. Report 1850, appx., p. 8 CONCLUSION. Has Pennsylvania no public spirit ? Is she, too, at the mercy of the mo- nopolists ? Will she not exert ber power? But the city of New York will hardly stand silently by, and suffer her trade and intercourse with the entire South to be embarrassed by the vam- pires who have fastened themselves upon the main artery of communica- tion. Will not her enterprising people, — shall not their legislature assist in repressing this public evil ? The New York pilotage monopoly was remedied by New Jersey laws. Cannot the New Yorkers do something for their country ? It is manifest from the character and past conduct of these companies that nothing but the most stringent enactments on the part of the States alone could reach the case. The interests of the monopolists, but not of the public, are subserved by imagining doubts, and difficulties, and 'lions in the path.' Concerted determination is the one thing wanted. The authority of the Congress of United States has been heretofore in- voked, and might be, more effectually, again. On the 24th of March, 1852, the state of New Jersey passed an act sub- stantially taxing gold and silver passing across her soil. If all the Califor- nia gold passing and repassing should pay this tax, the state would probably derive a revenue of §30,000 a year. If that State has a right to tax the transportation of bullion two cents for every ten miles, she may tax it indefinitely, and she has a right to en- force such imposts, if necessary, by means of custom houses and armed force. How far this may contribute to remove the United States Mint from the city of Philadelphia remains to be seen. The unconstitutionality of this Act should be brought to the attention of Congress. Let us have an untaxed national road. In the meantime the citizens of New York and Philadelphia should encourage and establish rapid sea communication by powerful steamships. The business of transportation between the cities is yet in its infancy. If in 1846 it exceeded one hundred millions, in value, by the Napoleon line, it probably amounts to several hundreds now. That the people of New York and Pennsylvania, and of the entire Nation, shall tamely, silently, and without an effort, submit to these exaclions upon their business and social intercourse, by the New Jersey monopolists forever, is a supposition that cannot be entertained. Finis. DEMCO PAMPHLET BINDER Tan Pressboard UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 3 0112 064074138