..AILROAD REFORM 
 [N NEW HAMPSHIRE 
 
 Ancient, Modem and Future 
 
 By WILLIAM E. CHANDLER 
 f ■ ' In Three Chapters 
 
 A Supplemental CHAPTER FOUR 
 
 ... AND . . . 
 
 AN AFTERWORD 
 
 With Sundry Additional Papers Relating to 
 
 OSECRANS W. PILLSBURY 
 
 ... AND . . . 
 
 HENRY B. QUINSY 
 
 Candidates for Governor 
 
 THE PLATFORM REPUBLICANS 
 
 Led by SHERMAN E. BURROUGHS 
 
 The Idiosyncrasies of Messrs. Churchill, Pillsbury, 
 
 D. C. Remich and Streeter 
 
 The New Leaders of Reform in 1908 
 
 And the Pending Merger of the New Hampshire and Boston 
 Railroads with New York Corporations 
 
 THE RUMFORD PRINTING COMPANY, CONCORD. N. H. 
 August 24, 1908 
 
 [From whom copies of this pamphlet may be obtained gratis through postal card requests] 
 [Second Edition. September 7, 1908] 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 (1) Railroad Reform in New Hampshire, Ancient, Modern and Future : 
 
 Chapter One — July 28, 1908 . . . * * 
 
 (2) Chapter Two— July 29, 1908 
 
 (3) Chapter Three— August 1, 1908 
 
 [Readers are advised first to peruse Chapters Three and Four and 
 the Afterword.] 
 
 (4) Senatorial Election of 1901 : 
 
 Mr. Rosecrans W. Pillsbury’s Confession of July 31, 1908 
 
 (5) Rosecrans W. Pillsbury, Free Passes, July 27, 1908 
 
 (6) The Platform Republicans— Letter from Mr. Chandler to Sher- 
 
 man E. Burroughs, July 31, 1908 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 1 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 17 
 
 [No reply received up to September 7.] 
 
 (7) Second Letter to Mr. Burroughs— August 10, 1908 
 
 [No reply received up to September 7.] 
 
 (8) Supplemental Chapter Four of Railroad Reform, August 17, 1908 19 
 
 (9) The Merger of the New Hampshire Railroads into New York 
 
 City Corporations— Mr. Chandler’s Letter to Attorney-Gen- 
 eral Bonaparte of December 5, 1907, Article in New England 
 Magazine for May, 1908 ^ 
 
 (10) Mr. Chandler’s Public Appeal Against the Merger, June 22, 1908 2( 
 
 AFTERWORD. 
 
 (11) The New Leaders of Railroad Reform in New Hampshire, 1908: 
 
 Messrs. Churchill and Pillsbury, D. C. Remich and Streeter 
 the Lamb and the Wolf; the Hornet and the Spider- 
 August 24, 1908 ^ 
 
 >v 
 
RAILROAD REFORM IN NEW HAMPSHIRE 
 
 Ancient, Modern and Future, in Three 
 Chapters 
 
 (By William E. Chandler.) 
 
 Chapter One, July 28, 1908. 
 
 To the Republicans of New Hampshire: 
 
 I am impelled by the existing political 
 situation in our state to continue my 
 custom of free and frank speech by 
 stating what I think the Republican 
 party ought to do. What is first said 
 may be considered as too personal to 
 myself; what is said in conclusion I 
 hope will be thought broad and un- 
 selfish; and a wise conclusion for U3 
 all to reach. . 
 
 Ancient Reform, 1881 and Before. 
 
 About a third of a century ago I be- 
 gan to fight the railroad evils, the de- 
 struction of which has been and is now 
 a principal aim of the Republican re- 
 formers of New Hampshire, as a part 
 of the similar Roosevelt policy in the 
 nation. In the legislature of 1881 I 
 exposed the wrong and attempted the 
 suppression of railroad free passes. On 
 June 23, 1881, I introduced in our leg- 
 islature a bill prohibiting illegal free 
 passes, and providing that every stock- 
 holder might see the lists of free passes 
 issued — which practically would have 
 made public the existence of all passes. 
 »On July 14, a member moved its in- 
 -1 definite postponement saying that he 
 i| noticed that the bill was to take effect 
 'on its passage; if it did it would put 
 f him in a sort of dilemma as he wanted 
 I to go home and use his pass. He 
 heard others around him say “Me too.” 
 He moved an indefinite postponement 
 and there were 176 yeas and 36 nays. 
 Later, I moved the section as an 
 amendment to another bill and on Au- 
 gust 11, was voted down 145 to 53. No- 
 • body but myself took an active part in 
 this movement against free passes. 
 
 Complaint to the Interstate Commerce 
 Commission. 
 
 My opposition to free passes being 
 constantly kept up, I complained 
 against the Boston & Maine railroad to 
 the interstate commerce commission of 
 the United States and on December 29, 
 1891, the commission decided that it 
 was unlawful for the railroad to do as 
 it confessed it had been freely doing — 
 give free passes to “gentlemen long 
 eminent in the public service,” higher 
 officers of the states of Maine, New 
 Hampshire, Vermont and Massachu- 
 setts, prominent officials of the United 
 States, members of the legislature, 
 railroad committees of the above 
 named states and persons whose “good 
 will” was claimed to be “important to 
 the corporation.” 
 
 After this decision the railroad con- 
 tinued to give passes to every New 
 Hampshire politician who wanted them 
 but tried to cover its conduct by say- 
 ing “Good for no part of an interstate 
 journey.” 
 
 The “Paupers and Others ” Legisla- 
 ture of 1897. 
 
 My continued contest against criminal 
 free passes, however, proved so dan- 
 gerous to the railroad and the politi- 
 cians that in 1897 they came to realize 
 that something must be done; especial- 
 ly as the members of the legislature 
 meeting on January 6th of that year 
 all had free passes given to them. 
 
 But not until March 23 did the bill 
 adding to the law allowing free passes 
 to paupers the words “and others” 
 make its appearance under the de- 
 ceptive title of “An act in amendment 
 
 S 
 
9 
 
 of chapter 160 public statutes relating 
 to passengers, freight and railroad 
 police.” On that very day it was rail- 
 roaded through the senate — being re- 
 ported by the senate committee, rules 
 suspended, read a third time by its 
 title, passed and sent to the house. 
 
 On the same day in the house the 
 bill was referred to the committee on 
 railroads; on the next day it was by 
 Mr. James E. French reported that it 
 ought to pass. 
 
 ‘‘On motion of Mr. Batchelder of 
 Keene the rules were suspended the 
 bill read a third time by its title and 
 passed.” Mr. Batchelder stated that 
 the object of the bill was to make legal 
 the issue of passes to members of the 
 legislature and the bill passed without 
 objection under a suspension of the 
 rules. 
 
 On the 26th the legislature adjourned 
 and went home on the passes they had 
 so suddenly legalized. I notice that 
 Mr. Rosecrans Vi. Pillsbury was a 
 member of this legislature of Mr. 
 Batchelder’s. 
 
 Back to 1900. 
 
 Under this system of free passes the 
 results had been on November 6, 1900, 
 stated by me as follows: 
 
 ‘‘The New Hampshire system of rail- 
 roads is gone. Consolidation has come; 
 competition is extinguished; the power 
 of the railroad commission to control 
 rates in advance has gone; stock has 
 been watered by many millions of dol- 
 lars; the state received nothing for its 
 rights in the Concord railroad; free 
 passes are universal and have been ex- 
 pressly legalized; and the railroad is 
 the all-controlling political power in 
 the state.” 
 
 On October 25, 1900, I had published 
 the following: 
 
 ‘‘The lawyers of the state are nearly 
 all under the retainers of the railroad. 
 Most of them receive nothing more than 
 free passes marked “Rtr” and they 
 sign agreements binding themselves in 
 all things to the company. The active 
 politicians of the state of both parties 
 receive free passes. The nominees for 
 the various state officers in both parties 
 are selected by a small coterie of rail- 
 road employees assembled either in the 
 office of the manager in Concord, or in 
 the railroad office in Boston: or in the 
 office of the principal attorney in Con- 
 cord.” 
 
 The Free Pass Evil. 
 
 My expositions of the free pass evil 
 were persistent and constant. Certain 
 extracts may well be read now; as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 “Free passes or mileage tickets given 
 away. 
 
 “The distribution of these is wide- 
 spread and everywhere prevalent 
 among government officials and persons 
 of influence. All lawyers ride free. The 
 editors and newspaper managers ride 
 free. Ministers ride free or at special 
 rates. The governor rides free. His 
 council ride free. All officers at the 
 state house ride free. The members 
 of the legislature all ride free, not only 
 during the session but during the rest 
 of the year. . County, city, and town 
 officers ride free. The wives and child- 
 ren of most of the freeriders also ride 
 free. Above all, local politicians in 
 every town and ward ride free. The 
 exceptions to the above statements are 
 so few that they prove the general rule. 
 Corruption by free passes and mileage 
 tickets is almost universal. No person 
 of any importance in town or state 
 fails to ride free unless he omits to 
 ask for his free pass or his free ticket. 
 
 If any person, high or low, rich or poor, 
 is heard to make vigorous protest 
 against any railroad wrong, he is ap- 
 proached by some ready emissary of 
 the roads and quieted by a free pass. 
 
 “Although the railroads are public 
 corporations and there ought to be no 
 more secrets about their business than 
 about that of the state or national gov- 
 ernment, yet all lists of free riders are 
 kept from the public knowledge. There 
 may be 5,000, there may be 10,000, of 
 these persons, hired by the railroads 
 by free passes, but no authentic know- 
 ledge of their numbers or names reach- 
 es the people. The man who pays his 
 fare does not know but what his next 
 neighbors in the car, or all the other 
 persons in the car, ride free. The 
 free pass evil it is difficult to abate be- 
 cause it is impossible to discover its 
 details. No record is kept of the free 
 riders, and if there were it would not 
 be accessible to the public. The facts 
 above stated are all true, and yet it 
 would be difficult to prove them. The 
 railroad officials keep silent on the sub- 
 ject, and say they are not true. Their 
 consciences are blunted by long ex- 
 perience in the wrong and they lie with i 
 recklessness and fearlessness if asked 
 
3 
 
 [ 
 
 1 
 
 about free passes in particular or in 
 general.” 
 
 No Free Government in New Hamp- 
 shire. 
 
 “There is no government absolutely 
 free in New Hampshire. Railroad 
 passes and railroad money dominate 
 the state; and the governor, councillors, 
 senators, and representatives are the 
 mere agents in their offices of the two 
 great railroads. Will any one dare 
 deny this? I challenge him to a dis- 
 cussion of the question, and point him 
 to such notorious and overwhelming 
 facts as these: (1) That every candi- 
 date for governor, councillor, or legis- 
 lator, of either party, is nominated by 
 I railroad influence; and (2) that the 
 nominations are controlled by free 
 passes and by large railroad money ex- 
 I penditures, the secrets of which are 
 i kept off the records of the railroads 
 and are known only to the railroad 
 agents who deal out the passes and 
 funds.” 
 
 Republican Peril and Duty. 
 
 “The evils which result from railroad 
 rule of the state of New Hampshire 
 | are many and far-reaching. The very 
 existence of the system of free passes 
 and of widespread corruption by the 
 use of railroad money Is demoralizing 
 in the extreme. The foundations of 
 public and private virtue alike are 
 weakened by the notorious and fla- 
 j grant violations of law involved in 
 the distribution of free passes and the 
 corruption by secret bribes from rail- 
 roads of the voters and officials of the 
 state; without regard to the ultimate 
 object of the system, whether that be 
 bad or good. The integrity and moral 
 1 tone of a community are as distinctly 
 | lowered by such vices as they are by 
 intemperance and licentiousness. If 
 permanently tolerated extreme deg- 
 radation of morals and government is 
 1 sure to result.” 
 
 Appeal to Legislature of 1899. 
 
 “Let a New Hampshire legislature 
 for once resist ‘the shameless and un- 
 scrupulous lobbying’ and the selfish 
 ! pressure of the ‘powerful and insolent 
 corporation,’ and establish and pro- 
 claim the honor and manhood of the 
 leading and influential Republicans of 
 the state — which Republicans you are. 
 
 ! “To the Republican members I have 
 the right to appeal to avoid the dis- 
 honor which will come to them if, with 
 
 the railroad legislation of the present 
 session before them, they vote with 
 these free passes in their pockets. Is 
 there one of them who is willing to 
 hang his free pass upon his breast, and 
 rise in his seat, and vote on railroad 
 bills with his badge of servitude in 
 plain sight of the world? Is there one 
 of them who is willing to so vote, and 
 at the end of the session go to his 
 home, frame his. pass, and hang it up 
 in his house, tell his wife and children 
 what it means, and that there it shall 
 remain during future years to be the 
 record of his shame? Send back the 
 passes and mileage books.” 
 
 Manchester Mirror. 
 
 The Manchester Mirror of December 
 10, 1898, shows the need of the above 
 appeal when it said: 
 
 “That all members of our legislature 
 ride free upon our railroads while en- 
 gaged in the performance of their 
 duties is notorious.” “Of the four 
 thousand men, more or less, who have 
 been elected to our legislature within 
 twenty years, we venture to say that 
 not ten have refused to ride on a pass.” 
 
 New Hampshire’s Abject Condition. 
 
 The abject condition of slavery to 
 which the people of the state of New 
 Hampshire have been reduced by all the 
 foregoing transactions was depicted by 
 me on December 30, 1898, as follows: 
 
 1. All the railroads whether within 
 or without the state may consolidate 
 into one corporation at their own will 
 and pleasure, and one Great Railroad 
 Company embraces substantially all 
 our state lines as a part of irresistibly 
 powerful lines outside the state. 
 
 2. All railroad competition is abol- 
 ished. 
 
 3. No new railroads can be built un- 
 less the supreme court decide that the 
 public good requires them, which it 
 never does. 
 
 4. Millions of watered railroad stock 
 have been issued and the people are 
 taxed to pay dividends thereon. 
 
 5. The power of the railroad commis- 
 sioners to fix fares and freights has 
 been practically destroyed. 
 
 U. The expenditure of vast sums of 
 money in controlling legislatures has 
 been encouraged by repealing a wise 
 law limiting such expenditure; and 
 
 7. The right of the railroad man- 
 agers to give free passes not only to 
 paupers but to legislators, public offl- 
 
4 
 
 cials and all others; to give them to 
 one man and withhold them from an- 
 other, according to their pleasure or 
 caprice, has been affirmed by a law 
 passed for the express purpose of de- 
 luging the legislature with free passes 
 when railroad legislation is pending; 
 all this stupendous revolution having 
 been accomplished through laws carried 
 through the legislature of New Hamp- 
 shire by the pressure of railroad power 
 scandalously and often corruptly ex- 
 erted. 
 
 Back to 1892. 
 
 On March 4, 1892, I made an earnest 
 appeal to Messrs. H. M. Putney, Frank 
 N. Parsons and E. G. Eastman, com- 
 mittee to prepare resolutions for the 
 state convention of April 27, 1892. It 
 recited all the railroad evils existing 
 in the state and concluded by urging 
 the adoption of a resolution which was 
 as follows: 
 
 Resolution Suggested. 
 
 “Resolved, That the Republican party 
 of New Hampshire is the advocate of 
 the people’s rights and not the slave 
 of corporation power; that while it 
 makes no war upon corporations, it in- 
 sists that they shall not become the 
 masters of the state, but shall be regu- 
 lated by, and be obedient to, wise and 
 wholesome laws enacted for their gov- 
 ernment; that the people of New 
 Hampshire demand the abolition of the 
 degrading system of illegal free passes 
 and of the control of the state legis- 
 lature by corrupt railroad agencies; the 
 revision of the method of valuing rail- 
 road property for taxation, an assess- 
 ment of such property at its full and 
 complete value as compared with other 
 property and its taxation at the same 
 rate; the realization of the value of 
 any interest of the state in any state 
 railroad and the application of the 
 amount to the payment of the state 
 debt; the prohibition of the issue of 
 watered stock or unnecessary stock in 
 any form and of the payment of ex- 
 cessive dividends; and the establish- 
 ment of perfect equality of right for 
 all the people in the use and enjoy- 
 ment of the railroads of the state which 
 are not wholly private property but 
 are open public highways whereon 
 every citizen has the same right as 
 any other citizen, so that any favorit- 
 ism or discrimination is a wrong and 
 crime which should be punished by the 
 severest laws.” 
 
 It is needless to say that this move- 
 ment went no further than my pen. I 
 remember no expression in its favor 
 from any other human being. This 
 was 16 years ago. 
 
 Railroad Revenge. 
 
 The natural and inevitable conse- 
 quence of such a condition of slavery 
 in New Hampshire, and my solitary 
 agitation for its destruction, was that 
 while I had been nominated for a 
 second election to the United States 
 senate on January 10, 1895, by a vote 
 in caucus of 224 to 59 for all others, I 
 was, on January 10, 1901, defeated for 
 a third election by a vote in caucus of 
 47 for me to 198 for Mr. Burnham; and 
 75 for all others. 
 
 Chapter Two, July 29, 1908. 
 
 It can hardly be supposed that the 
 slavery of New Hampshire to free 
 passes issued by the one railroad which 
 controlled our politics would go wholly 
 unnoticed, especially after the dis- 
 graceful conduct of the legislature of 
 1897 in authorizing free passes to ev- 
 erybody who might ask for them and 
 to whom the railroad might choose to 
 give them; namely, to paupers and all 
 others. But cunning devices were re- 
 sorted to in order to evade prohibiting 
 passes. 
 
 The Republican State Convention 
 of 1898. 
 
 To the resolutions committee of the 
 Republican state convention of Sep- 
 tember 13, 1898 (as against a resolution 
 demanding the destruction of free pass- 
 es by an act of the legislature) a dec- 
 laration was presented asserting only 
 that the people ought to be asked to 
 vote upon the question of calling a 
 constitutional convention to act upon 
 abolishing free passes and upon any 
 other changes of the organic law of the 
 state which experience had shown to 
 be advisable to make. It was the rail- 
 road trick to adopt no other resolution. 
 But Senator Blair, being on the reso- 
 lutions committee, told them this reso- 
 lution alone would be a farce and se- 
 cured the adoption of an additional 
 clause saying: 
 
 “In the meantime we favor such leg- 
 islation as may properly anticipate the 
 adoption of a constitutional amendment 
 prohibiting free passes” 
 and both declarations were adopted by 
 the convention. 
 
5 
 
 There had been a discussion in the 
 state committee the night before. Colo- 
 nel Scott of Peterborough moved that 
 a committee be appointed to bring in 
 a list of officers for the convention. 
 Governor Busiel objected. Joining him, 
 I stated that the Democratic state con- 
 vention of August 31st had adopted a 
 resolution saying: 
 
 “We condemn the action of the last 
 legislature in enacting a law legalizing 
 free passes and demand its repeal.” 
 
 And I urged that the convention the 
 next day ought to make the same dec- 
 laration; and I moved to amend Colo- 
 nel Scott’s motion by omitting the 
 naming of a committee on resolutions. 
 Mr. D. C. Remich spoke in opposition; 
 I called for a rising vote; Mr. Jeremiah 
 W. Sanborn also spoke with Governor 
 Busiel and myself, but our amendment 
 was voted down, 248 to 90 and Colonel 
 Scott’s motion adopted. The prelim- 
 i inary committee on resolutions was E. 
 G. Eastman, Henry B. Quinby and 
 James O. Lyford. By the aid of the 
 last two Mr. Blair’s amendment to the 
 resolution presented to the convention 
 which demanded action by the legisla- 
 ture against free passes was made a 
 part of the report of the committee. 
 There was, however, debate in the con- 
 vention. Governor Busiel moved a 
 long series of radical resolutions for re- 
 form, including the prohibition of free 
 passes, which I sustained. They were 
 opposed by Mr. D. C. Remich and Mr. 
 
 : Lyford and we were voted down by 60 
 . affirmative votes to overwhelming neg- 
 i ative votes not counted. I did not no- 
 . tice whether Mr. Rosecrans W. Pills- 
 
 • bury was present. 
 
 The Failure of the Legislature of 1899. 
 
 f The legislature came and went and 
 f did nothing. All the members had free 
 passes. Governor Rollins in a long 
 
 • message made 18 specific recommenda- 
 f - tions and elaborated the arguments in 
 
 • their favor, but said nothing against 
 spending money in politics, railroad 
 
 • crimes or free pass briberies. There 
 were good reasons why he did not. But 
 
 ■ Mr. Clement of Warren, a Democrat, 
 on January 11th, introduced a bill re- 
 pealing the “paupers and others” act 
 
 • of 1897 and providing for the transpor- 
 5 tation at the expense of the state of 
 i the members of the legislature and oth- 
 er state officers. It was referred to the 
 
 '! judiciary committee to A. T. Batchel- 
 der, chairman and author of the act of 
 
 1897, and on February 22nd it gave him 
 pleasure to report it adversely. The 
 language of the report and the subse- 
 quent proceedings should be read in 
 full, as follows: 
 
 Whereas, the railroads of the state 
 have issued free passes to the mem- 
 bers of the legislature residing on their 
 lines respectively, during the sessions 
 thereof for more than a quarter of a 
 century without condition; and 
 
 Whereas, the present salary of mem- 
 bers of the legislature was fixed by the 
 constitutional convention of 1889 and 
 ratified by the people, when such free 
 transportation was furnished; and 
 
 Whereas, another session of the leg- 
 islature must be held before the con- 
 stitution can be changed; and 
 
 Whereas, a joint resolution has 
 passed both branches of the legisla- 
 ture submitting to the people the ques- 
 tion of the advisability of holding a 
 constitutional convention; therefore 
 
 Resolved, that it is inexpedient to leg- 
 islate upon the question at this time. 
 
 The report was accepted and the 
 question being upon the adoption of the 
 resolution, 
 
 [Discussion ensued.] 
 
 Mr. Clement of Warren moved that 
 the bill and report be laid upon the ta- 
 ble to be printed. 
 
 On a viva voce vote the motion did 
 not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Clement of Warren moved that 
 the bill and report be laid upon the ta- 
 ble and made the special order for 
 Thursday, February 23, at 11:30 o’clock. 
 
 On a viva voce vote the motion did 
 not prevail. 
 
 On a viva voce vote the resolution 
 was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Clement of Warren demanded 
 a yea and nay vote. 
 
 The roll call pending, Mr. Keyes of 
 Milford moved that the bill and report 
 be recommitted to the committee on 
 the judiciary. 
 
 On a viva voce vote the motion did 
 not prevail. 
 
 [Discussion continued.] 
 
 The roll was called with the follow- 
 ing result: Yeas, 292; nays, 22; and 
 the resolution was adopted. 
 
 During the debate Mr. Batchelder 
 said: “The subject of free passes should 
 be considered in a constitutional con- 
 vention.” Mr. D. C. Remich said: “The 
 
6 
 
 matter should be postponed to the con- 
 stitutional convention. In spite of the 
 party declarations in favor of the pass- 
 age by this legislature of an anti-free- 
 pass law, within a week after the Dem- 
 ocratic state convention the chairman 
 and secretary of the Democratic state 
 committee called for free passes and 
 got them.” 
 
 Mr. Clement, hostile to free passes, 
 predicted thus: “When the constitu- 
 tional convention is called, every mem- 
 ber of that convention will get a free 
 pass just as the members of the legis- 
 lature do — ” 
 
 And so the legislature of 1899 — 292 to 
 22 — decided to keep and use their free 
 passes and to perpetuate the system 
 of free pass briberies. Among the 292 
 I notice the names of Rosecrans W. 
 Pillsbury and Daniel C. Remich. 
 
 The Failure of the Constitutional 
 Convention. 
 
 This convention came in 1902. The 
 railroad sent free passes to every mem- 
 ber. Thereby the railroad candidate, 
 being its chief attorney, was made 
 president, against Judge David Cross. 
 Early I began the fight for a declara- 
 tion against free passes. But we were 
 met with the assertion by Mr. E. F. 
 Jones of Manchester: “There is no 
 proper place in our constitution for any 
 measure of this kind. Action in this 
 regard should be left to the legislature.” 
 Mr. E. G. Leach said: “Let the legisla- 
 ture take care of this. It is not a 
 matter that belongs to a constitutional 
 convention.” Mr. DeWitt C. Howe 
 said: “This is a subject for the legisla- 
 ture and not for a constitutional con- 
 vention.” Mr. Hadley, of Temple, rep- 
 resenting the state granges, said: “I 
 do not believe there is any need of giv- 
 ing the Boston and Maine railroad a 
 slap in the face because they are con- 
 siderate enough to help out the state 
 of New Hampshire by giving the mem- 
 bers of the legislature and of this con- 
 vention free passes.” In behalf of the 
 grange, Mr Hadley also extended “the 
 sincere thanks of this organization to 
 the railroad in this public manner for 
 their many courtesies.” 
 
 Of course there was thereafter no 
 possibility of our success. I was aided 
 in debate by Messrs E. C. Hubbard, 
 S. W. Emery, J. C. A. Wingate, E. C. 
 Niles and George I. McAllister, and af- 
 ter an unfair and unjust attempt by 
 the presiding officer to prevent a yea 
 
 and nay vote we obtained it, but were 
 defeated by 221 to 101. Free passes in 
 the pockets of the members did the 
 deadly deed. I notice among the votes 
 against suppressing free passes that of 
 Mr. R. W. Pillsbury. 
 
 The Failure of the Legislature of 1903. 
 
 Following the constitutional conven- . 
 tion of December, 1902, the legislature | 
 meeting January 7th, 1903, did nothing, j 
 The senate index does not contain the 
 word railroad. It does show this: 
 “Passes. Clerk instructed to procure I 
 from secretary of constitutional con- j 
 vention certified copy of resolution re- j 
 lating to.” It came and also the resolu- 
 tion on trusts. On February 3d the ! 
 Journal says: “On motion of Senator | 
 Page it was voted that action on the i 
 foregoing resolutions be indefinitely j 
 postponed.” On January 21st the j 
 house passed a similar call upon the 
 secretary of the constitutional conven- 
 tion which was complied with. On 
 February 10th Mr. Small of Rochester 
 moved that the resolutions be referred 
 to the judiciary committee. There was 
 discussion and the record is as follows: 
 
 “Discussion ensued. Mr. French of | 
 Moultonborough moved that the resolu- 
 tions be indefinitely postponed and on I 
 a viva voce vote the motion prevailed. 
 Mr. Small of Rochester called for a 
 division. A division being had, 145 
 gentlemen voted in the affirmative and 
 45 gentlemen voted in the negative, and 
 no quorum having voted, the house j 
 stood adjourned.” 
 
 On February 11th the resolutions were | 
 indefinitely postponed— yeas 191, nays | 
 140. 
 
 Mr. Winston Churchill of Cornish 
 voted yea. 
 
 Mr. D. C. Remich of Littleton voted 
 nay. 
 
 The Failure of the State Conven- 
 tions of 1904. 
 
 These state conventions of both po- 
 litical parties said nothing about rail- 
 roads or free passes. 
 
 On September 8, 1904, I had made a 
 strenuous appeal to the three platform I 
 advisers and draftsmen, Messrs. F. D. 
 Currier, Harry G. Sargent and John B. 
 Gilbert, repeating my arguments pre- 
 viously advanced. I also said: 
 
 “The omission of Democratic conven- 
 tions to continue to declare against 
 
7 
 
 free passes since the control of that 
 party passed into the hands of the Bos- 
 ton and Maine railroad and its attor- 
 ney, Mr. John M. Mitchell, as the Re- 
 publican party has been in the hands 
 of that railroad and its attorney, Mr. 
 Streeter, gives the Republicans this 
 year an opportunity to specially com- 
 mend their platform to the 397,000 fare 
 payers which I am confident you at 
 least will not neglect to try to take ad- 
 vantage of.” 
 
 I also called attention to the popular 
 movement in Wisconsin under Gover- 
 nor La Follette which had secured “an 
 increase of taxes upon the railroads of 
 over $600,000 annually; and I predicted 
 the governor’s re-election^which came, 
 followed by his election to the United 
 States senate. 
 
 Upon the committee I urged a reso- 
 lution as follows: 
 
 Anti-Free Pass Resolution Proposed. 
 
 The Republican party of New Hamp- 
 shire, in its state convention held Sep- 
 tember 13, 1898, favored the calling of a 
 constitutional convention for the ex- 
 press purpose of abolishing free passes, 
 and such legislation in the meantime as 
 might properly anticipate the adoption 
 of such an amendment to the constitu- 
 tion. The constitutional convention 
 which assembled in December, 1902, be- 
 ing of opinion that the matter of free 
 passes was properly a legislative ques- 
 tion, referred the whole subject to the 
 legislature. The legislature of 1903, ig- 
 noring the expressed desire of the Re- 
 publican party, failed to take any ac- 
 tion upon the subject. We now de- 
 mand that the next legislature pass an 
 act punishing by severe penalties, not 
 only the issuing of free railroad passes 
 to others than persons regularly in the 
 employ and pay of the railroad issuing 
 such passes, or persons who by reason 
 of poverty are unable to pay their 
 fares, but also the receiving and use of 
 such passes by any persons not in the 
 exempted classes, and providing for the 
 keeping, by all railroads operating in 
 this state, of records, accessible at all 
 times to all public prosecuting officers 
 and justices of the peace, containing a 
 detailed statement of all passes issued, 
 and the persons by and to whom, and 
 the causes for which, they are given. 
 
 The Failure of the Legislature of 1905. 
 
 The senate index does not contain the 
 word “railroad” nor “passes.” The 
 house index does not contain the word 
 
 “passes” and under “railroads” we read 
 of inspectors, stakes and wires for 
 flat cars, and explosives on the tracks— 
 but nothing more. Mr. Winston 
 Churchill was member from Cornish 
 and Mr. Rosecrans W. Pillsbury from 
 Londonderry. All the members of the 
 legislature were offered free passes. 
 
 The Reform Movement of 1906, 
 
 From this disgraceful record of state 
 dishonor relieved by the positive ac- 
 tion prior to 1902 against railroad domi- 
 nation of almost no citizen except 
 Governor Busiel and myself, it is a 
 pleasure to turn to the reform move- 
 ment of 1906. It was largely due to the 
 election of Theodore Roosevelt as pres- 
 ident and to the inauguration by him 
 of railroad reform in national affairs. 
 
 On July 4, 1906, thirteen honorable 
 and influential citizens issued an ad- 
 dress presenting Mr. Churchill as a 
 candidate for the next Republican nom- 
 ination for governor. I had urged 
 Messrs. Chalmers and D. C. Remich to 
 originate a reform movement of some 
 kind; but I knew nothing of the 
 Churchill movement until after the ad- 
 dress was issued. Later I learned it 
 was thought best not to ask me to 
 sign the manifesto lest I should try to 
 use the projected reform to aid a pur- 
 pose of becoming 1 again a candidate for 
 United States senator. Mr. Niles and 
 Mr. Churchill, however, asked me to 
 participate and I at once cordially 
 promised to support Mr. Churchill. I 
 should not have done so if I had known 
 that he had by letter promised to sup- 
 port Mr. Pillsbury. The presentation 
 of Mr. Churchill as it had been made, 
 primarily on the platform of “Conis- 
 ton,” did not seem to me to be practi- 
 cal politics, as it would require the 
 voters at the caucuses to buy and read 
 the nQvel or else have it given to them, 
 which might not be thought to be a 
 legitimate campaign expenditure. 
 Therefore I suggested the need of a 
 platform, and it was prepared — and as- 
 sented to by Mr. Churchill. Outside of 
 “Coniston” I do not think I had read 
 or heard of any public utterance 
 against the railroads from Mr. Church- 
 ill or any of the thirteen signers to the 
 pronunciamento in his favor — except 
 such as I have hitherto alluded to in 
 this paper. I think I ought further 
 to except Bishop Niles, who had for 
 years felt a righteous indignation at 
 the domination of New Hampshire's 
 
8 
 
 political government by the Concord 
 and Boston & Maine railroads, which 
 he had expressed in various appropriate 
 ways. But naturally he could not have 
 been expected to start a new party or- 
 ganization alone. 
 
 The Riseand]Fall of the Lincoln Club. 
 
 The new movement was brilliantly 
 conducted. It is not necessary to now 
 recite its history. If there had been 
 cordial co-operation between the 
 Churchill and Pillsbury forces, Mr. 
 Churchill would have been nominated. 
 He would have been nominated if Mr. 
 Pillsbury had not, when he withdrew 
 his own name, made an impassioned 
 appeal for the nomination of Mr. Floyd. 
 But the Lincoln club reform in New 
 Hampshire had become a power in con- 
 nection with Roosevelt reform in the 
 nation. Its platform had been adopted 
 by the state convention and its candi- 
 date for governor had almost over- 
 thrown all three of the other candi- 
 dates and, although defeated, seemed 
 to be a coming man in our state poli- 
 tics. The sequel, however, was most ' 
 absurd. Prior to the election the Lin- 
 coln club officers had no considerable 
 membership besides themselves. Their 
 supporters, however, appeared at the 
 caucuses and conventions and after the 
 election a meeting was held of various 
 gentlemen with a view to enlarging and 
 perpetuating the club as a political 
 power for reform and good government 
 and it was decided to continue to invite 
 accessions of members until a large 
 constituency should be obtained. 
 
 Nonsensical Management of the 
 Lincoln Club. 
 
 It was also expected by me that the 
 club would continue to suggest candi- 
 dates for other offices to be filled in the 
 future, especially, as reform measures 
 were to be asked from the legislature, 
 was it important that there should be a 
 reform candidate for speaker — who 
 naturally would not be Mr. Ellis. 
 Furthermore no one seemed to doubt 
 that there should be a reform candidate 
 for United States senator at the com- 
 ing session, considering the circum- 
 stances of the nomination of the sena- 
 tor in office. From sincere conviction 
 as to the best course to be pursued and 
 to relieve every one as to my own 
 plans, I had in October suggested 
 Judge James W. Remick, the president 
 
 of the club, as the best candidate for 
 senator, had urged him to run and had 
 pledged myself to support him. I 
 thought also that Mr. Churchill should 
 continue to be a candidate and become 
 the next governor in 1908. A singular 
 decision was, however reached. Our 
 whole contest for reform had taken 
 shape in urging a particular candidate 
 for an office — that of governor. Now, 
 however, we were told that this was not 
 a wise method of reform; that it 
 showed our selfishness; that we must 
 abstain from pressing candidates; must 
 let Mr. Ellis be speaker and Mr. Burn- 
 ham be re-elected senator; and must 
 show our unselfish devotion by press- 
 ing only our principles and measures — 
 Mr. Churchill to be the first and last 
 Lincoln Republican candidate for any 
 office. Such altruism was beyond my 
 comprehension. But it worked. It 
 nominated Mr. Ellis and re-nominated 
 Mr. Burnham. A member of the club 
 became a candidate for United States 
 senator but Mr. Churchill opposed and 
 excommunicated him. The Lincoln 
 club I have lost sight of. It was 
 turned over to Governor McLane and 
 Mr. Allen Hollis and has gone where 
 the woodbine twineth. 
 
 Chapter Three, Aug. 1, 1908. 
 
 No doubt emotions of indignation 
 have arisen in the minds of our citizens 
 who have honored me by reading 
 Chapters One and Two of this history 
 of railroad evils in New Hampshire and 
 of our incomplete efforts for reform. 
 Condemnation and denunciation of the 
 methods adopted and of the chief 
 authors of the iniquities have not been 
 omitted by me in the past— even when 
 I have been alone in the conflict, as I 
 have been during nearly the whole 
 period. It was perilous to be denuncia- 
 tory then. It is easy, safe and popu- 
 lar to indulge in maledictions now. But 
 is such the wise course in the present 
 state and national political campaigns? 
 I think not and will submit my reasons. 
 
 I. 
 
 The Railroad Managers Not Alone 
 Blamable. 
 
 It occurs to me in review that the 
 railroads and their servants were not 
 wholly to blame for their taking pos- 
 session of the politics of the state. 
 
9 
 
 Were not the great body of the citi- 
 zens at fault for their obtuseness, their 
 indifference and their complicity in 
 connection with their subjugation to 
 railroad power? Only one in a hundred 
 of the men received the corrupting free 
 passes. Why did the ninety-nine tol- 
 erate the injustice? Now the people 
 are awake. Are they not to be severely 
 judged for their apathy hitherto; and 
 was it not natural that the railroad 
 managers should be tempted by the 
 lack of general opposition from the 
 free people to seize with such easy 
 weapons as free passes the political 
 government of New Hampshire? If 
 they now submit to reform and attend 
 more strictly and quite willingly to 
 their legitimate business, can we • not 
 afford in the state and presidential can- 
 vass to moderate somewhat our vio- 
 lence in our abuse of our late railroad 
 rulers? For this one time at least I 
 propose to try the experiment. 
 
 II. 
 
 The Substantial Progress of Reform. 
 
 An additional reason for moderation 
 is to be found in the substantial prog- 
 ress made in reform and the all around 
 general willingness to promote it. Our 
 state convention of 1906 adopted the 
 platform demanded by the Lincoln club. 
 Governor Floyd gave it his cordial 
 support both as a candidate and a pub- 
 lic official. The legislature made efforts 
 to do its duty. Instead of an anti-free 
 pass bill, however, the house as its first 
 action adopted a bill in favor of the 
 free passes which the railroad had sent 
 to the members, But reason soon re- 
 sumed its sway. An anti-pass bill of 
 some value became a law and other 
 helpful measures were passed. Today 
 there is no objection to the passage by 
 the next Republican convention of radi- 
 cal resolutions and it is reasonably cer- 
 tain that a legislature will be chosen 
 which will carry out the will of an 
 emancipated people. 
 
 Radical Roosevelt Reform. 
 
 Above all is the cause of reform in 
 New Hampshire made sure by its pre- 
 valence in . national politics. The 
 Roosevelt administration has been one 
 of radical reform measures; the Taft 
 convention has made strong declara- 
 tions and has taken no step backward. 
 For all that reform has accomplished 
 in state and nation we ought to be 
 
 thankful. Let us try the game of har- 
 mony until after the coming election. 
 If then we find we have been deceived 
 and are to be disappointed it will be 
 easy enough to resume violent methods. 
 
 No Steam Roller Yet Needed in 
 New Hampshire. 
 
 The radical reform position of the 
 Bryan Democrats will help keep in line 
 lukewarm Republicans. Let us win 
 another victory before building and 
 propelling a New Hampshire steam 
 roller. Let that engine of oppression 
 be non-existent except as a national 
 machine. 
 
 III. 
 
 Danger of Republican Defeat in 
 the State. 
 
 The principal controlling reason with 
 me in advocating moderation and con- 
 ciliation is the fear of Republican de- 
 feat in state and nation. It is easy, 
 but untrue, to say that there is no 
 danger in New Hampshire and that 
 therefore, we may safely indulge in 
 vituperation and proscription of Re- 
 publicans. 
 
 Even our natural and inevitable 
 troubles of two years ago, growing out 
 of the long hoped for but long delayed, 
 awakening of the people against their 
 railroad masters, reduced our majority 
 of 15,000 on congressmen down to a 
 minority of 341 on governor. This year 
 we should build up and not continue 
 to destroy. We want the cordial sup- 
 port and labors of every Republican. 
 We do not need to denounce or threat- 
 en any Republican, and I protest 
 against any nomination or plan of 
 campaign based upon such principles; 
 as likely to bring to disaster even the 
 Republicans of a state reckoned as sure 
 for Taft and the other steam shovellers 
 as is New Hampshire. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Danger to the Taft Ticket in the 
 Nation. 
 
 Peace and good behavior among the 
 Republicans of New Hampshire are 
 also advocated by me in the interest of 
 the Republican national canvass. An 
 abstention from quarreling here will 
 tend in some degree to harmony in 
 national Republican politics. There is 
 need of this. I have participated more 
 
10 
 
 or less in thirteen presidential contests; 
 in the two Grant campaigns conducting 
 the work of the national committee 
 and for sixteen years an active member 
 thereof. In every one of the contests, 
 except perhaps in 1900 and 1904, there 
 was a period in the canvass when Re- 
 publican defeat seemed probable. In 
 1864 Mr. Lincoln himself for a time 
 felt certain that he was to be beaten 
 by McClellan. 
 
 Majority Party Always in Danger 
 
 It should be borne well in mind that 
 in a free republic where one party has 
 been long in power there is a constant 
 tendency of the people, irrespective of 
 the real issues, to put it out of power 
 and give the other party a chance. It 
 is possible, though not probable, that 
 such a wave of sentiment may sweep 
 over this country as will elect Mr. 
 Bryan. What do we in New Hamp- 
 shire know of the thoughts that may 
 be gathering in the minds of the Re- 
 publicans of the great West? Peace 
 and concord here will strengthen the 
 national ticket everywhere. Let us not 
 allow them to be trampled upon on 
 any pretence, or to gratify unworthy 
 animosities or promote selfish ends. 
 
 V. 
 
 Who Shall Be Our Candidate for 
 Governor ? 
 
 Bearing all these state and national 
 perils in mind, the Republicans of New 
 Hampshire are shortly to nominate a 
 governor. Shall a candidate be selected 
 representing bitter hostility to every- 
 body who has been in any way respon- 
 sible for the lamentable condition of 
 slavery to the railroads which I have 
 depicted? Shall the canvass be one of 
 denunciation and ostracism of indi- 
 vidual Republicans who may have been 
 delinquent in times past when rail- 
 road evils should have been suppressed 
 in their beginnings, If this is the plan 
 of the Republican party and punish- 
 ment is to be inflicted and revenge 
 taken upon the responsible authors of 
 our recent woes, I am entitled to say 
 that I ought to be the leader and the 
 candidate. I could not, like everybody 
 else, be reproached for complicity or 
 too prolonged acquiescence in the 
 wrongs for which punishment and re- 
 venge are to be applied. But I decline 
 the nomination once tendered me by 
 the Manchester Mirror which seems to 
 
 have abandoned the first friendly im- 
 pulse. We need a reformer with mod- 
 eration and not a reformer with vio- 
 lence. As the people of the country 
 have no latitude of choice in electing 
 a president but must decide between 
 Taft and Bryan, so the Republicans of 
 New Hampshire apparently at this 
 time in selecting a candidate for gov- 
 ernor must decide between Mr. Quinby 
 and Mr. Pillsbury. I have already in- 
 dicated some of the facts and opinions 
 which lead me to prefer the former. 
 
 Henry B. Quinby. 
 
 Henry B. Quinby is a gentleman of 
 culture and superior literary and in- 
 tellectual attainments. His character 
 for integrity and uprightness of life is 
 unimpeachable. He is a life-long Re- 
 publican. Without indecision or any 
 concealment of views upon public ques- 
 tions he has no enemies in the Repub- 
 lican party. That union, peace and 
 harmony in the Republican ranks 
 which I said are indispensable to full 
 victory would begin with his nomina- 
 tion and result in his election. 
 
 Quinby a Reformer. 
 
 But how about his relations to reform, 
 it will be asked. Answer: He is as 
 good a reformer as anybody who will 
 ask the question: On the committee 
 on resolutions in the convention of 1898 
 he favored the declaration for legisla- 
 tion against free passes. In 1906 he 
 was on the committee on resolutions 
 which adopted the reform platform. 
 On April 21st he was chairman of the 
 committee on resolutions which recom- 
 mended the resolution adopted pledging 
 the party to previous declarations. 
 
 Quinby Not a Railroad Man. 
 
 It has been charged that he has been 
 dominated by the railroad because in 
 his business of a foundryman he has 
 sold car wheels to the roads. If this 
 has been wrong it ended two years ago. 
 It is a frivolous accusation. He was 
 a candidate for United States senator 
 in 1901, when the railroad made a sena- 
 tor, and did not adopt him but pro- 
 scribed him. 
 
 I notice that Mayor Harry G. Sargent 
 objects to Mr. Quinby because he says 
 the railroads are or will be in his 
 favor. Mr. Sargent knows whom the 
 railroad would prefer if it could name, 
 as sometimes heretofore, the candidate. 
 
11 
 
 But of course as between Mr. Quin- 
 by and Mr. Pillsbury it would prefer 
 the former; as between Taft, the judi- 
 cious reformer, and Bryan, the ex- 
 treme reformer, it prefers Mr. Taft. Mr. 
 Sargent knows that if he had become 
 himself a candidate for governor, as 
 he has been urged to be, and the issue 
 had come between him and Pillsbury, 
 the railroad would have preferred him. 
 
 What Quinby Is Sure to Be and Do. 
 
 The railroad is not going to inter- 
 fere in nominations for governor and 
 other offices as it did prior to the or- 
 ganization, in Sargent, Remick and 
 Niles’ office, of the Lincoln club of 1906. 
 Mr. Quinby is a reformer committed 
 to all the propositions announced by 
 the Republican state conventions of 
 September 18, 1906 and April 21, 1908, 
 and by the Republican national con- 
 vention of June 16, 1908. He will ad- 
 vocate and try to bring to fruition all 
 the principles which may be adopted by 
 the Republican state convention of 
 September, 1908. If he were to see 
 that he could not do this he would not 
 accept the nomination from that con- 
 vention. He will advocate and sup- 
 port those principles courageously, sin- 
 cerely and without betrayal or eva- 
 son. His life long character, and not 
 mere temporary promises in an ex- 
 igency, will be to his constituents the 
 guarantee of his fidelity. But he will 
 under present conditions bitterly de- 
 nounce nobody, and will not try to 
 punish anybody in the Republican 
 party. It gives me pleasure to sup- 
 port him. I do not even make qualifi- 
 cations, as Mr. Churchill did when he 
 said in 1905 to Mr. Pillsbury that he 
 would support him as against any- 
 body then in the field; and afterwards 
 went into the field himself against Mr. 
 Pillsbury. 
 
 Rosecrans W. Pillsbury. 
 
 No harsh words against Mr. Pills- 
 bury will be said by me in this chap- 
 ter. If I ever say anything severe 
 against him it will be in a Chapter 
 Four, if called for. In some respects 
 I have admired him. He is energetic 
 and forceful. His great blunder in 
 1906 was in pleading with the state 
 convention after his own withdrawal 
 to nominate Mr. Floyd instead of ad- 
 vocating Mr. Churchill. I have not 
 easily or hastily given up the idea that 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury, anxious as he has been, 
 might make himself the nominee for 
 governor. But I did abandon com- 
 pletely the thought that this was pos- 
 sible when I read his announcement in 
 the Union of April 18, 1908, as follows: 
 
 “ To New Hampshire Republicans. 
 
 “Some of the Republican bosses are 
 desperately seeking a candidate for 
 the Republican gubernatorial nomina- 
 tion whom they can control. Through 
 fraud, bribery, corruption and ballot 
 box stuffing in caucuses — methods 
 which were carried into the state con- 
 vention — they gained a position of 
 vantage which resulted in the nomina- 
 tion of their candidate in the last cam- 
 paign. The full story of those dis- 
 graceful practices has never been told 
 and ought never to be told. 
 
 “But the bosses who directed that 
 movement and THE MAN WHO 
 PROFITED BY THOSE FRAUDU- 
 LENT METHODS, are proposing to 
 abandon party precedent and secure a 
 candidate of their own whom they hope 
 to nominate BY THE SAME COR- 
 RUPT METHODS. Success through 
 such practices ought not to and can- 
 not come twice in succession. If tried, 
 the self respecting party members will 
 be warned and will heed the warning.” 
 
 This Assault on Governor Floyd 
 Needless. 
 
 This ferocious assault by Mr. Pills- 
 bury was published by him in huge 
 letters and astonished all men who 
 read it, including those who had been 
 inclined to support him for governor. 
 It was entirely uncalled for by any 
 provocation happening at that time. It 
 was a most needless charge upon Gov- 
 ernor Floyd — an attempt to put a 
 stigma upon him wholly without just 
 defense or useful purpose. Governor 
 Floyd has persistently exerted himself 
 to remove every cause of criticism and 
 has enrolled himself upon the list of 
 New Hampshire governors without 
 stain and with credit. Why ask him 
 to support Mr. Pillsbury for governor 
 in view of the latter's present charge 
 that he was nominated by fraud, 
 bribery, corruption and ballot box 
 stuffing— and that, as “the man who 
 profited by those fraudulent methods,” 
 he proposes to nominate his successor 
 “by the same corrupt methods.” 
 
 Whom the Gods wish to destroy they 
 first make mad. 
 
12 
 
 The Pillsbury Assaults on Other 
 Republicans. 
 
 It is painful to see and impossible to 
 comprehend Mr. Pillsbury’s present 
 other attacks upon individuals — which 
 I will not now recite. If he has given 
 up the hope of the nomination and has 
 only the purpose of using his tempor- 
 ary control of a great newspaper to try 
 'vto dishonor his opponents and revenge 
 himself upon them, his course is in- 
 telligible and not particularly harmful. 
 But it is incomprehensible that the 
 Bepublicans of New Hampshire who 
 give serious thought to the present 
 political situation in state and nation 
 should for a moment contemplate mak- 
 ing him our standard bearer in the 
 coming canvass. 
 
 Does Pillsbury Represent Taft, Hitch- 
 cock and the Steam Roller ? 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury, incited by a potent, 
 powerful and wealthy coadjutor, is as- 
 suming to use the Taft-Hitchcock in- 
 fluence in his attacks upon Senator 
 Gallinger, Mr. Howard and Mr. Moses 
 for their votes in the national conven- 
 tion for Vice President Fairbanks. The 
 same game was played prior to the 
 state convention of April 21st which 
 chose delegates to Chicago. The ven- 
 erable Judge Cross was coaxed into 
 leading the forlorn hope; but the con- 
 vention by a demonstration of about 
 750 to 25 voted down preference reso- 
 lutions and thereby commanded its 
 delegates to vote at Chicago on June 
 16th according to their judgment at the 
 time. For doing this the three inde- 
 pendent gentlemen have been pursued 
 with violence and malignancy by Mr. 
 Pillsbury in the Union. 
 
 Untrue Charges Made Against Senator 
 Gallinger and Others. 
 
 Such stories as these are told: 
 
 (1) That the New England senators, 
 (except Lodge and Frye) a year ago 
 agreed to support Fairbanks for pres- 
 ident and that Senator Gallinger at the 
 April convention concealed the fact 
 that he was not at liberty to vote for 
 Taft. 
 
 (2) That Congressman Currier at 
 that state convention promised the re- 
 
 solutions committee that Senator Gal- 
 linger would vote for Taft. 
 
 (3) That Mr. Lucius Tuttle made 
 Senator Gallinger the candidate for 
 national committeeman four years ago. 
 
 All of these charges I know to be 
 untrue. 
 
 Is It to be War or Peace Within 
 the Party ? 
 
 In conclusion I remark that it is not 
 a matter of no considerable importance 
 whether Mr. Taft and Mr. Hitchcock 
 are advising these attacks by the men 
 who claim to exclusively represent 
 them in New Hampshire. It is doubt- 
 less true that no amount of such at- 
 tacks will take the electoral vote of 
 New Hampshire away from Taft. But 
 this is certain: that If the same 
 methods were pursued by Mr. Taft’s 
 friends, and such men as Mr. Pillsbury 
 thereby nominated for governors in 
 New York, Illinois, Indiana and Wis- 
 consin, there would be in every one 
 of those states a plurality for the 
 Bryan electors. 
 
 Pillsbury Committed to the Rail- 
 road Merger. 
 
 There is one other special point to 
 which I wish to call public attention. 
 The fixed committal of any candidate 
 for governor to aid the railroad merger 
 whereby the New Hampshire system 
 of roads is to be transferred from 
 Boston control to New York city own- 
 ership, should prevent the nomination 
 of that candidate. It has been all that 
 our state could endure to surrender 
 our railroads to Boston and Mr. Tuttle. 
 But we ought to help Boston and Mr. 
 Tuttle keep the Boston & Maine and 
 all its lines out of Mr. Mellen’s con- 
 trol. Boston is big enough and rich 
 enough to finance a Boston system, and 
 New Hampshire should help in the 
 work. We cannot undo many bad 
 things of the past; we can prevent 
 many worse things in the future. I 
 am glad that Mr. Quinby is not in the 
 slightest degree committed to the 
 merger; I regret that Mr. Pillsbury 
 is so committed, — and I hope he will 
 withdraw his committal. 
 
 Wm. E. Chandler. 
 
 August 1, 1908. 
 
SENATORIAL ELECTION OF 1901 
 
 Mr. Rosecrans W. Pillsbury’s Confession 
 
 “As the holder of an annual pass I 
 had observed and had had personal ex- 
 perience that more was required than 
 indicated in the contract. One instance 
 of the latter will illustrate. Just 
 prior to the Republican senatorial cau- 
 cus in 1901, LIKE HUNDREDS OF 
 OTHER ANNUAL PASS HOLDERS, 
 I received a telegram from the late 
 Superintendent John W. Sanborn to 
 come to Concord at once. The nature 
 of the business was not stated. Upon 
 reporting to Mr. Sanborn in Room 2 
 at the Eagle, he told me I had been 
 sent for to aid in the defeat of Senator 
 Chandler for renomination and I was 
 specifically asked to make certain that 
 the representative from Londonderry 
 should act in accordance with that de- 
 sire. I informed Mr. Sanborn that the 
 caucus at which he had been nomin- 
 ated had thus instructed our member, 
 and I believed him a man of honor. I 
 was then asked to do what I could to 
 promote the nomination of Mr. Burn- 
 ham, and I found scores of other pass- 
 holders, UNDOUBTEDLY HUNDREDS 
 OF THEM, in no wise connected with 
 the legislature, were there under sim- 
 ilar commands. Disgusted I took the 
 first train home.” 
 
 Rosecrans W. Pillsbury. 
 
 Julv 31. 1908. 
 
 Confession is good for the soul. Bet- 
 ter late than never. Consider the pic- 
 ture presented by the present candi- 
 date for governor; who charges that 
 Mr. Quinby will, if nominated, be con- 
 trolled by the railroad. Mr. Quinby 
 was a candidate for senator in 1901 and, 
 like Mr. Chandler, was opposed and 
 defeated by the railroad. Mark Mr. 
 Pillsbury’s confession. He was ordered 
 to the Eagle Hotel by the railroad. He 
 came on an annual pass. He informed 
 Mr. Sanborn that he had already done 
 the railroad’s work in Londonderry. 
 He was asked to do more at Concord. 
 Did he refuse? No; he waited around, 
 did what else he could, the work in 
 which he had aided was thoroughly 
 done by him and hundreds of other 
 
 passholders, and when it was done he 
 went home. That he correctly des- 
 cribed what took place is clear, al- 
 though no railroad participator has 
 ever admitted the full facts before. 
 The only new fact which Mr. Pillsbury 
 contributes is that he went home “dis- 
 gusted.” Yet he continued for about 
 five years more to ride on a free pass 
 and to do the work of the railroad. 
 When a member during the session of 
 1905 he accepted a pass and rode on it 
 daily from Londonderry to Concord 
 and back; but did not draw his mileage 
 for the session — 10 cents per mile for 
 68 miles, $6.80! That was the session 
 which considered as railroad questions 
 only inspectors, stakes and wires for 
 flat cars and explosives on the tracks. 
 
 Since my letter of July 29 Mr. G-eorge 
 A. Worcester of Milford writes me as 
 follows: 
 
 “Lest you might infer that all virtue 
 departed from that body with the pass- 
 age of the Salem Race Track bill, I 
 would ask that you look under the 
 word ‘mileage.’ You will find that on 
 January 23 Mr. Eben M. Willis of Con- 
 cord gave notice of a bill to provide 
 for the payment of mileage to those 
 members who could not conscientiously 
 use the free passes presented to them 
 by the railroad company. On January 
 24 the bill was introduced and referred 
 to the committee on railroads and 
 there was some support to the 
 measure; and I recall some time 
 later they gave us a hearing at 
 which Winston Churchill appeared and 
 that he said he consigned the pass 
 sent him to the waste basket. No re- 
 port was made on this bill and it was 
 included in the long list indefinitely 
 postponed on March 10th.” 
 
 Messrs. Worcester, Churchill, Willis 
 and Pillsbury were learning slowly the 
 evils of free passes; and two of them 
 became so shocked that in 1908 they be- 
 came reform candidates for governor. 
 Will they please inform me how many 
 and who of the members beside Mr. 
 Churchill rejected their free passes. 
 Both Mr. Pillsbury and Mr. Churchill 
 
14 
 
 were too busy getting through the 
 Salem Race Track bill to care much 
 for anything else at that session. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury now says he returned 
 his session pass for 1897 and 1899. 
 Naturally he did not use them — as he 
 held and used his regular lawyer’s 
 pass. For that he says he “acted for 
 the road in several instances of claims 
 and minor accidents and conferring 
 with claim agents as called upon.” 
 
 I respectfully ask for a list of the 
 claims and minor accidents and a 
 statement of the conferences with 
 claim agents. The list will not be a 
 long one; and I am quite sure the con- 
 ferences were about politics and not 
 about claims. Politics were what se- 
 cured Mr. Pillsbury his retainer by a 
 free pass. Will he also tell us whether 
 
 he received any money besides the 
 pass; if so, when and how much. I 
 reckon he received none. 
 
 The object of this memorandum is 
 mainly to call attention to the now ad- 
 mitted facts of the senatorial election 
 of 1901, which, through the fault of the 
 Lincoln club members, were repeated 
 in 1907. It is not intended to reproach 
 Mr. Pillsbury or any one else for riding 
 on free passes prior to the advent of 
 modern Reform. Nor do I expect to 
 see righted the wrong done me in 1901. 
 But it is pertinent to pending questions 
 to say that Mr. Quinby is today as 
 good a reformer as Mr. Pillsbury; I 
 think he is more reliable. Certainly 
 he is more judicious and less abusive, 
 violent and revengeful. Let us have 
 peace and amnesty. W. E. C. 
 
 ROSECRANS W. PILLSBURY 
 
 Free Passes — July 27, 1908 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury’s article in the Union 
 refers to me for proof that Mr. Tuttle 
 has mixed in politics in New Hamp- 
 shire. I promptly answer that he has 
 and that he is mistaken in his denial. 
 He is probably like Mr. Streeter trying 
 to forget the past and to behave well in 
 the future. By Mr. Streeter’s depar- 
 ture from the railroad management of 
 politics in New Hampshire, Mr. Tut- 
 tle has been able and has tried to les- 
 sen his interference therein. I do not 
 think it wise to dare him to come in 
 by assaults like Mr. Pillsbury’s. Nev- 
 ertheless, I hope Mr. Tuttle will com- 
 ply with Mr. Pillsbury’s demand, al- 
 though ferocious, to publish a list of 
 all the free passes which he is, even in 
 these reform days, giving to citizens 
 of New Hampshire. I have fought un- 
 ceasingly for the publicity of free 
 passes. 
 
 In the legislature of 1881 — twenty- 
 seven years ago — I endeavored to se- 
 cure the passage of a law requiring 
 records of all free passes to be made 
 
 and kept open to every stockholder and 
 the railroad commissioners. 
 
 On July 11, 1891, I made formal 
 complaint to the interstate commerce 
 commission against the Boston & 
 Maine railroad for issuing illegal free 
 passes and at last obtained a decision 
 forbidding them — contained in Senate 
 Document No. 63, 55th Congress, 3d 
 session, January 14, 1899. It contains 
 lists of the free pass riders and on 
 page 19 is to be found the following: 
 
 “W. S. Pillsbury, general, compli- 
 mentary ; R. W. Pillsbury, complimen- 
 tary” ; and on page 29 the following: 
 “W. S. Pillsbury, complimentary ; R. 
 W. Pillsbury, services.” 
 
 It has always seemed to me unwise 
 for the pot to call the kettle black, and 
 in the interest of peace and harmony 
 and Republican victory in the pending 
 canvass I advise Mr. Pillsbury, treas- 
 urer of the Manchester Union, to go 
 slow. 
 
 Wm. E. Chandler. 
 
 July 27, 1908. 
 
PLATFORM REPUBLICANS 
 
 Mr. Chandler a “ Sender-In,” but He Asks 
 
 Questions 
 
 The following letter is of interest to 
 those who follow current political hap- 
 penings in New Hampshire: 
 
 Concord, N. H., July 31st, 1908. 
 Sherman E. Burroughs, Esq., 
 
 Manchester, N. H. 
 
 ! Dear Sir: In response to the re- 
 quest of the Platform Republicans is- 
 sued July 28th, Prof. James A. 
 Tufts, chairman, I hereby send my 
 name to you as willing to do all in my 
 power to secure the election of dele- 
 gates and officers who can be relied 
 upon for loyal services in renewing the 
 pledges of the platform of 1906 and 
 making those pledges effective in legis- 
 lation.” I presume I need not trans- 
 mit to you any evidence of qualifica- 
 tions sufficient to justify me in send- 
 ing in my name and saying I am with 
 you — just as loyally as I sent in my 
 name to the small body of men of two 
 years ago to whom you allude being 
 the Lincoln club, now extinct. I should 
 have been glad two years ago and this 
 year to have participated in the first 
 movement for reform made by the 
 Lincoln club and the Platform Republi- 
 cans; but I was intentionally excluded 
 therefrom. I cheerfully drafted a 
 platform for the Lincoln club and now 
 gladly send my name to you, which 
 sending, as the record now stands, 
 seems to be the sole participation ex- 
 pected or allowed in the deliberations 
 of the general committee of the Plat- 
 form Republicans. 
 
 That committee was to consist of two 
 persons from each county “which 
 should add to its own number as oc- 
 casion might require.” I am ambitious 
 not only to send in my name but to be 
 a member of the committee. Please 
 inform me on certain points which will 
 
 ! enable me to decide what the chances 
 may be of my being promoted from a 
 “sender-in” to a full-grown committee- 
 man. 
 
 (1) Who was present at the meeting 
 when the general committee was ap- 
 pointed? 
 
 (2) There are already named not 20, 
 but 29 members of the committee. How 
 many of them before July 28 had sig- 
 nified their willingness to become mem- 
 bers and to join in the appeal of the 
 Platform Republicans which you have 
 issued? How many and who of the 29 
 knew what your purpose, statement of 
 principles and discussion of the merits 
 of candidates were to be? 
 
 (3) What is your plan as to the fu- 
 ture personnel and powers of the or- 
 ganization? Is it to remain a board of 
 trustees of 29 or is it likely to be in- 
 creased? What are the powers and 
 privileges of the 29 as compared with 
 those of the senders-in, or do the lat- 
 ter have no power except to contrib- 
 bute to the work of organization as 
 directed by the 29? 
 
 No material qualification would I 
 make to the eight statements of the 
 platform which you propose. But I do 
 make three suggestions and ask for at 
 least two additions. (1) It is a fairly 
 open question whether the system of 
 primaries should be so far extended as 
 to destroy all political conventions, 
 state and national. (2) It should be 
 understood that if the whole business 
 of politics is to be carried on through 
 primaries there must be some method 
 of so providing for the expense of the 
 same that a poor man as well as rich 
 men may be able to run for office. (3) 
 Before revising our tax laws it is not 
 necessary to ask an opirfion of the su- 
 preme court and then have a constitu- 
 tional convention; and it is not wise to 
 defer action upon all questions of tax- 
 ation until after a constitutional con- 
 vention and a vote of the people upon 
 its recommendations. Such a plan re- 
 minds me of the way in which the free 
 pass prohibition was bandied about be- 
 tween convention and legislature and 
 all action prevented. 
 
 In my opinion the legislature, under 
 the constitutional amendment of 1903, 
 the language of which I gladly helped 
 to frame at the request of Mr. George 
 H. Moses, has ample power to pass all 
 
16 
 
 necessary and advisable special tax 
 laws. It certainly can correct without 
 delay the error in our present railroad 
 taxation, which was recently the sub- 
 ject of judicial decision. “The hope 
 deferred maketh the heart sick,’” and it 
 is unwise to postpone all tax legisla- 
 tion into the dim future, as inadvert- 
 ently proposed by the draftsman of the 
 platform of the general committee. I 
 do not accuse him of any sinister pur- 
 pose but the clause looks bad. I have 
 no doubt it is a delight to the railroad 
 managers. We should avoid every ap- 
 pearance of evil. 
 
 The two additions to the platform 
 which I urge upon the organization are 
 as follows: 
 
 I. 
 
 A physical valuation of railroads as a 
 basis for fixing fares and freight rates. 
 
 The language used by me in 1906 in 
 pressing the proposition upon the Lin- 
 coln club reformers was this: 
 
 “The ascertainment of the true value 
 of the railroads within the state which 
 shall aid in the fixing of transportation 
 rates without considering fictitious cap- 
 italization and shall furnish a just ba- 
 sis for the taxation of the railroad 
 lines.” The club, however, insisted up- 
 on striking out the words “which shall 
 aid in the fixing of transportation rates 
 without considering fictitious capitaliz- 
 ation.” 
 
 It is possible the Platform Republi- 
 cans might prefer the language of the 
 La Follette resolution presented by 
 Congressman Cooper to the national 
 convention and voted down, which was 
 as follows: 
 
 “The enactment of a law requiring 
 the interstate commerce commission to 
 make an exact inventory of the physi- 
 cal property of all railroads, such val- 
 uation to be made the basis of just and 
 reasonable railroad rates.” 
 
 Certainly no reformer on the platform 
 committee can hesitate about urging 
 the adoption of a declaration approved 
 by President Roosevelt and Senator 
 LaFollette for protecting the people 
 from railroad extortion in order to pay 
 interest on dividends or bogus cap- 
 italization like that by which the cap- 
 ital of the Concord railroad was in- 
 creased from $1,500,000 to $3,000,000 with- 
 out the payment of one dollar for the 
 stock issued to make the increase. 
 
 Naturally the Lincoln club reformers 
 of 1906 were not so radical as the 
 platform committee of 1908. When I 
 presented in 1906 the anti-free pass 
 
 pronouncement it prohibited free passes 
 to “newspaper proprietors.” The club 
 struck out those words as they also 
 did a clause re-enforcing “the power 
 of the railroad commissioners to con- 
 trol passenger and freight rates.” But 
 the world moves. 
 
 II. 
 
 Th«re should be a plank opposing the 
 railroad merger. New Hampshire has 
 allowed its system of roads to be 
 seized by Boston. We should never I 
 consent to have it transferred to New j. 
 York city. The next legislature can 
 prevent this evil; and members should j 
 be elected who will fight the merger as \ 
 Boston is fighting it. This vital point i 
 I hope to enlarge upon hereafter. 
 What do you say to it? 
 
 Candidates for Governor. 
 
 The platform proclamation closed by \ 
 recommending “that at present this ; 
 organization do not attempt to com- jj 
 mit itself definitely to any particular 
 gubernatorial candidate.” It is per- 
 haps my misfortune that I had al- 
 ready reached the opinion that of the 
 candidates in the field Mr. Quinby 
 would be the best and I had prepared 
 for publication my reasons. Of the 
 three known candidates the platform 
 committee undertake to absolutely ex- 
 clude only Mr. Quinby. I have read 
 with care their thirteen lines of con- 
 demnation and say to you and to the 
 people of New Hampshire that no one 
 of them is true. All are untrue. If I were 
 not unwilling to imitate in a peaceful 
 document the language of the great- 
 est living reformer, I would use a j 
 more forceful and strife-producing 
 word. That Mr. Quinby is a more re- 
 liable reformer than Mr. Pillsbury and 
 is seeking union and harmony while 
 Mr. Pillsbury is seeking discord and 
 revenge I have endeavored elsewhere 
 to show. 
 
 (1) Hoping to hear from you 
 shortly in reply to my questions and 
 (2) asking for notice of any meetings 
 that may be lawfully attended by 
 “senders in” and (3) desiring admission 
 to membership with the very elect— 
 the Twenty-nine if I am deemed quali- 
 fied for such distinction; and (4) with 
 thanks for your sincere speech and 
 work hitherto for reform and (5) ad- 
 miration for your talents as a lawyer 
 and orator I remain 
 
 Truly yours for the cause, 
 
 Wm. E. Chandler. 
 
TRICK CONDEMNED 
 
 Chandler Warns Burroughs to Hold Reform 
 
 Standard High 
 
 Artifice of “Platform Republicans’’ Will Cause Criticism — “ Sender-In ’’ 
 Wants to Know About His Amendments to the Platform of Committee 
 of Twenty-Nine. 
 
 Hon. William E. Chandler has sent 
 a second communication to Sherman E. 
 Burroughs, Esq., of the “Platform Re- 
 publicans” committee, which is as 
 follows : 
 
 Concord, August 10, 1908. 
 
 Sherman E. Burroughs, Esq., Manches- 
 ter, N. H. 
 
 Mr. Dear Mr. Burroughs: As yet I 
 have received no reply from you to my 
 letter of July 31st, by which, in re- 
 sponse to your invitation, I became a 
 “sender-in” of my name to the “Plat- 
 form Republicans”; and asked admis- 
 sion, if deemed qualified, to membership 
 of the committee of 29. I asked you 
 three courteous questions, to which I 
 hope yet to have an answer. 
 
 There are some other pending ques- 
 tions about which I think the public is 
 entitled to information which you are 
 bound to give. I have been led to be- 
 lieve that of the 29 persons mentioned 
 in your announcement as members of 
 the committee there were not present 
 the following: Messrs. Faulkner, John- 
 son, Pike, Bass, Templeton, Stevens, 
 McDuffee, Manning, Burge, Sanborn, 
 Henry, Martin and Hoyt; indeed, that 
 others of the 29 were absent, making 
 only eleven present. Will you not tell 
 me and the public the exact facts? 
 
 The materiality of my questions is 
 very evident in view of the singular 
 appearance of the manifesto of the 
 “Platform Republicans” as given to the 
 people on July 28th. 
 
 1st. It is signed by nobody. 
 
 2d. It is in two parts; (1) a state- 
 ment of principles; and (2) a conclusion 
 headed “Candidates for Governor.” 
 This unequivocally and severely con- 
 demns Mr. Quinby, professes, singular- 
 ly enough, not to understand Mr. Ellis’s 
 position, and praises Mr. Pillsbury. 
 
 Now, this second part about candi- 
 dates looks very much as if it had been 
 
 written in after the platform had been 
 finished. Indeed, I am quite sure that 
 Prof. Tufts, chairman, was not present 
 when it was tacked on to the address. 
 I have an honest doubt whether even 
 eleven reformers participated in the 
 adoption of this part No. 2. Some have 
 repudiated it. Will you tell us the 
 exact facts? 
 
 The question thus raised is not a 
 light one. We reformers are making 
 square issues with the machine men 
 and have been very free in denouncing 
 the tricky methods of some of them. 
 Necessarily we subject ourselves to 
 keen observation. We should, indeed, 
 be scrupulously careful not to resort 
 to any of the very artifices which we 
 are closely watching for and boldly 
 condemning. So I am anxious as “a 
 loyal Republican” and a “platform re- 
 former” to see our standard carried 
 high above deceitful trickery — and here 
 I see an apparent artifice which should 
 either be shown to be non-existent or 
 else humbly admitted, with forgiveness 
 asked for and better future behavior 
 promised. , 
 
 Even more than I desire the explana- 
 tions above sought for do I desire in- 
 formation from you as to your disposi- 
 tion toward the two additions to the 
 platform which I have asked for. 
 
 (1) Will the “Platform Republicans” 
 demand a physical valuation of the 
 railroads of the state — to be made a 
 basis for the fixing of fares and 
 freights by the new railroad commis- 
 sion, the organization of which the re- 
 formers demand? 
 
 This is the great issue of the future 
 as to railroads. If railroads, which are 
 worth only nine billions of dollars — but 
 are capitalized at 18 billions, are to be 
 allowed to tax the public to pay in- 
 terest on the eighteen billions, let us 
 say so. I am opposed to such a result. 
 Do not let the “loyal Republicans” or 
 
18 
 
 the “Platform Republicans” shirk the 
 issue, while pressing with zeal and 
 vehemence their eight propositions of 
 July 29th. 
 
 (2) Are the “Platform Republicans” 
 in favor — as the sole candidate for gov- 
 ernor whom they praise has announced 
 himself in favor — of the merger of the 
 Boston & Maine railroad and the Con- 
 cord railroad into the New York, New 
 Haven and Hartford railroad — with 
 headquarters transferred from Boston 
 to New York city? 
 
 Against this wrong and this injury 
 to New Hampshire I have made num- 
 erous appeals — one to Attorney General 
 Bonaparte, and one to the public on 
 June 22, 1908. I send you copies of the 
 last. Please consider them and give 
 me and the public a statement of the 
 position of the “Platform Reformers” 
 on an issue of vital importance to New 
 Hampshire. 
 
 Do not, I beseech you, take ground 
 in favor of Pillsbury and merger and 
 against Quinby and a Boston system 
 of New England railroads. 
 
 Let me emphasize one other point 
 contained in my letter to you of July 
 31st. 
 
 Delay in Reforming the Railroad 
 Taxes. 
 
 Are you opposed to the passage by 
 the next legislature of a law excluding 
 the special savings bank taxation from 
 consideration when the railroad taxes 
 are being assessed? Do you seriously 
 mean that our attitude on this ques- 
 tion is to do nothing until we pump 
 opinions on generalities from the 
 supreme court, obtain a constitutional 
 convention and wait for the people to 
 adopt further amendments to the con- 
 stitution? Will you not satisfy my 
 anxious mind on this point? I must 
 say that I am in favor of immediate 
 legislation in January next. Must I 
 therefore withdraw as a “sender-in” 
 to the “Platform Republicans?” 
 
 Hoping to hear from you without 
 delay, I remain, very truly your friend, 
 Wm. E. Chandler. 
 
SUPPLEMENTAL CHAPTER FOUR OF 
 RAILROAD REFORM 
 
 The course of the Manchester Union 
 in its efforts to injure Mr. Quinby and 
 to commend its treasurer, Mr. Pills- 
 i bury, to the voters of New Hampshire 
 | who are, on September 8th, to elect 
 delegates to the state convention of 
 I September 17th, seems to make it ad- 
 | visable for me to write a fourth chap- 
 l ter in my book on “Reform, Ancient, 
 Modern and Future;” and in this chap- 
 : ter to treat' various points which Mr. 
 
 [ Pillsbury, through the Union, has en- 
 deavored to make seem plausible. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury makes irrelevant com- 
 ; plaint that I have been quarrelsome 
 and abusive in times past. That I have 
 i- been engaged in earnest controversies, 
 public and private, during fifty years 
 j of active political life, is admitted; and 
 | thereupon I boldly make this assertion: 
 
 That I have never assailed any per- 
 son except either (1) for an important 
 public purpose which justified the as- 
 sault; or (2) in defense of myself from 
 unjust attacks which required my ac- 
 tion. 
 
 I challenge denial, with specifications, 
 of my two propositions above. Mr. 
 Pillsbury will please bring on his 
 I specific charges. I invite debate 
 thereon. 
 
 It is true that occasionally in a con- 
 troversy of mine, after it had pro- 
 ceeded towards a climax, the public 
 forgot that I did not begin it, and the 
 other party wished that he had not, 
 
 | and cried out that I had commenced to 
 attack him. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury’s Attack on Governor 
 Floyd. 
 
 Looking over my three chapters I 
 find no harsh word about Mr. Piils- 
 bury, unless it be my statement that he 
 i is pursuing Governor Floy 1 with 
 “malignancy.” I cannot change that 
 word— considering his demand in 1906 
 that the state convention should nom- 
 inate Mr. Floyd, which it did, and his 
 present assertion that he was nomin- 
 ated by “fraud, bribery, corruption and 
 ballot-box stuffing” and is seeking to 
 name his successor by “the same cor- 
 rupt methods.” 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury’s Unjustifiable Epithets. 
 
 The truth is that Mr. Pillsbury is 
 wholly at fault for any discourteous re- 
 cent utterances by any one. During a 
 newspaper discussion concerning the 
 merits of the merger, I quoted Mr. 
 Pillsbury’s words in his letter an- 
 nouncing himself as a candidate for 
 governor as follows: 
 
 “ In my judgment the proposed 
 merger of the Boston & Maine and 
 the New York, New Haven and Hart- 
 ford railroads would be beneficial to 
 the industrial interests of the state.” 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury’s reply on December 12, 
 1907, was: 
 
 “Hurry home, Bill,” “Sour, petulant, 
 waspish and hypercritical,” “Come, 
 Bill, from the haunts of your Ananias 
 club,” “Amoosin’ Cuss,” “Fifty Years 
 at the Public Crib,” “Come Back, Bill.” 
 
 Mr. Daniel C. Remich. 
 
 It is to be regretted — considering his 
 real ability — that Mr. Daniel C. Remich 
 is such an inconsistent and abusive 
 person. Two years ago he wrote me 
 that he hoped I would be a candidate* 
 for United States senator. Within len 
 days thereafter he wrote me that be- 
 cause I had condemned his brother’s 
 action I had committed a wrong for 
 which he would never forgive me; and 
 he never has. Jumping into contro- 
 versies now pending he uses, in a letter 
 of July 31 addressed to Rosecrans W. 
 Pillsbury, and published in the Union 
 of August 3, language of this sort: 
 
 “George H. Moses is a vitriolic har- 
 monizer.” * * * “They are resorting 
 to all kinds of ridicule, billingsgate and 
 vituperation to discredit you in the 
 minds of the people.” “A great major- 
 ity of the press of the state” “sub- 
 sidized by the Boston and Maine rail- 
 road” “If they £id not rally to the sup- 
 port of their employer and attack you” 
 “like a pack of starving hyenas they 
 would lose the money and passes that 
 they are now receiving.” “Why should 
 you be disconcerted by their clamor?” 
 “If they * * succeed in nominating 
 
 Henry B. Quinby they will see George 
 H. Bingham * * * or some other 
 
20 
 
 * * * Democrat of his stamp occupy- 
 ing- the gubernatorial chair” — and all 
 this to the same Pillsbury to whom he 
 wrote, on September 21, 1906, “Nineteen 
 hundred years ago there lived a Judas 
 Iscariot, in Revolutionary times we 
 had a Benedict Arnold, we now have a 
 Rosecrans W. Pillsbury.” 
 
 The truth is that Mr. Remich and 
 Mr. Pillsbury are what are called “im- 
 possible creatures” by ordinary men 
 endeavoring to conduct the ordinary 
 affairs of life as sensibly and peace- 
 ably as possible. Each of them really 
 thinks he could be a Theodore Roose- 
 velt if he could get a good chance upon 
 the public stage, and both of them 
 have some of his traits — asses in lions 
 skins. 
 
 Mr. Winston Churchill. 
 
 Mr. Churchill in politics is a similar 
 impossibility. He is not abusive, but 
 gently ineffective. I have read all his 
 books and am carried away by his 
 romantic imaginings. I adore his 
 charming female personages and for 
 the time being live among them — Doro- 
 thy Manners, Virginia Carvel, Cynthia 
 Ware and Victoria Flint — sweet crea- 
 tures all, bringing splendid dowries to 
 their creator. The trouble with Mr. 
 Churchill is that his mind lives with 
 such women all the time; and is there- 
 fore inoperative in politics. If he gives 
 himself to any work in life except 
 writing love stories, he should organize 
 a band of' female suffragettes. 
 
 Practically: He wrote a letter in 1905 
 to Mr. Pillsbury saying he would sup- 
 port him for governor against any can- 
 didate in the field, and in 1906 became 
 a candidate himself. After election he 
 decided that the reformers should not 
 have any candidate for United States 
 senator if not himself and so he and 
 the railroad re-elected Mr. Burnham. 
 In 1907 he decided to withdraw from 
 the field and support Pillsbury for 1908; 
 and did this without consulting any of 
 his associate reformers. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury’s Inaccuracies. 
 
 The Earl of Cromer in his recent ab- 
 sorbing book on “ModeTn Egypt” calls 
 attention to a remark of Sir Arthur 
 Helps which is: 
 
 “Half the evils of the world come 
 from INACCURACY.” 
 
 This truth is specially applicable to 
 the present discussion. To unfairly 
 quote another is a common fault of 
 
 controversialists. Brevity may be 
 sought, but quotation marks should 
 mean the exact words used. Asterisks 
 should call attention to words deemed 
 immaterial. There may be omissions in 
 paraphrasing statements — but the writ- 
 ers are responsible for giving fairly the 
 facts or ideas. Now for some notable 
 violations of these rules: 
 
 The Hazen Bill of 1887. 
 
 The Union of August 6th condemns 
 everybody who in 1887 supported the 
 Hazen bill, as Mr. Quinby did; and re- 
 fers to Governor Sawyer’s veto as 
 follows: 
 
 “Within a month the Hazen bill had 
 passed and was vetoed by the governor 
 for the reason that corrupt methods 
 have been extensively used for the 
 purpose of promoting its passage, by 
 those acting in the interests of the Bos- 
 ton and Maine corporation.” 
 
 The Union unfairly omits Governor 
 Sawyer’s emphatic additional words: 
 “It matters not that both of the parties 
 are probably equally guilty.” 
 
 It is of not much importance to go 
 back to 1887 and condemn Mr. Quinby 
 for supporting the Hazen bill. 
 
 The exact issue was stated by me in 
 a letter to Governor Sawyer of October 
 3, 1887, as follows: 
 
 “Waterloo, N. H., Oct. 3, 1887. 
 
 “My Dear Governor: * * * I earn- 
 estly advised Governor Hale to veto the 
 bill of 1883. It was a radical change of 
 policy, and I believed a bad change. 
 However, it was adopted. The right of 
 unlimited consolidation was given to 
 the railroads of the state, and to the 
 railroads out of the state, to be effected 
 according to their own pleasure, with- 
 out any further consent from the state 
 of New Hampshire. Four years later 
 the question comes up, not upon a 
 proposition to repeal the act of 1883, 
 reverse the policy then adopted and 
 revert to the original one, but upon two 
 propositions, — First (1), that of the 
 Hazen bill to provide a method for 
 buying out dissenting stockholders In 
 case of ninety-nine year leases (made 
 necessary by a decision of the supreme 
 court) and to declare that the Boston 
 & Lowell railroad was included within 
 the language of the act of 1883. Second 
 (2), that of the Atherton bill, which 
 seeks to force a union of the Concord 
 and the Montreal roads, destroying the 
 prior lease to the Lowell, and indirect- 
 
21 
 
 ly to take the Northern railway away 
 from the Lowell and give it to the 
 Concord.” 
 
 Upon the question thus arising hon- 
 est men might fairly differ. I never 
 satisfied myself that there had been 
 actual corruption sufficient to justify. 
 Governor Sawyer’s veto on that 
 ground. The mischief had been done by 
 the Colby act of 1883, which I advised 
 Governor Hale to veto. At his request 
 I drew up a veto message which, how- 
 ever, he was prevailed upon to with- 
 hold. It is interesting reading today 
 because it foreshadows the evils to 
 come from unlimited consolidation. 
 Even the defeat of the bill of 1887 only 
 resulted in the consolidation and the 
 stockwatering legislation of 1889. It 
 does seem that in 1887 Mr. Quinby, 
 while supporting the Hazen bill, pre- 
 pared and carried through the legisla- 
 ture certain provisions for two -cent 
 fares and mileage tickets and against 
 the raising of rates, which meritorious 
 measures Governor Sawyer vetoed 
 with the rest. 
 
 Mr. Tuttle and Senator Gallinger, 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury does not fairly state 
 the question concerning Mr. Tuttle’s 
 connection with Senator Gallin- 
 ger’s candidacy for the conven- 
 tion and the national committee 
 in 1904. His charge was that Mr. 
 Tuttle originated the candidacy and 
 made Gallinger the candidate of his- 
 corporation. The truth clearly appears 
 that Senator Gallinger’s decision arose 
 from the earnest insistence of Presi- 
 dent Roosevelt, Senator Burnham and 
 myself — brought to bear before Mr. 
 Tuttle knew anything about the plan. 
 Senator Burnham went to Mr. Tuttle 
 to induce him to prevent his attorney, 
 Mr. Streeter, from using railroad 
 power and passes in his own behalf 
 and against Senator Gallinger, — and 
 Mr. Tuttle promptly acted, adding an 
 expression of his own preference that 
 Senator Gallinger should be delegate 
 and committeeman. 
 
 The whole point of Mr. Pillsbury’s 
 present attack upon Senator Gallinger 
 as being ordered into the place by Mr. 
 Tuttle falls to the ground in the light 
 of the above impregnable facts. 
 
 At that time I thought Mr. Tuttle 
 was false to his assurance to Senator 
 Burnham and that he connived at Mr. 
 Streeter’s seizure, through Pillsbury and 
 Remich, of the committee place. It is 
 
 probable, however, that Mr. Streeter 
 thought that Mr. Tuttle, who had gone 
 abroad in ill health, would never re- 
 turn to the management of the railroad 
 and therefore ventured to use railroad 
 power to defeat Gallinger and seize the 
 committee membership. 
 
 Mr. Tuttle, upon his return, failed to 
 act with vigor in reference to Mr. 
 Streeter. If he had begun to realize 
 the extent of Mr. Streeter’s misuse of 
 railroad passes and power and deter- 
 mined to terminate his connection 
 with the road, he omitted then to 
 make his decision known. 
 
 Mr. Tuttle’s recommendation of Mr. 
 Streeter for national committeeman 
 in 1902 has little to do with the case. 
 Our executive committee of the state 
 committee had foolishly recommended 
 Mr. Streeter to Mr. Hanna; there was 
 no known opposition to the appoint- 
 ment, and Mr. Tuttle naturally gave 
 Mr. Streeter a recommendation. Two 
 years later he tried in vain to prevent 
 Mr. Streeter from defeating Senator 
 Gallinger; but he did not originate the 
 Gallinger candidacy, which was the in- 
 accurate charge with which Mr. Pills- 
 bury began his assault upon the sena- 
 tor as being the agent and creature of 
 Mr. Tuttle. 
 
 Mr. Streeter’s Confession and Retire- 
 ment as Chief Pass Distributor. 
 
 The real question as to Mr. Streeter 
 is not whether he actually wrote his 
 letter of October 29, 1906, to Mr. Tuttle 
 setting out the wickedness of the rail- 
 road and its agents for the last twenty 
 years in which he had participated 
 always as a potent worker, and during 
 the few years previous to 1904 as the 
 One Great New Hampshire Manager of 
 railroad politics — and declining to con- 
 tinue longer as counsel for the road. 
 
 No doubt he wrote the letter. But, 
 (1) had it not been previously deter- 
 mined by Mr. Tuttle that Mr. Streeter’s 
 position as chief counsel and manager 
 in politics should cease; and (2) did 
 Mr. Streeter know this, so that his let- 
 ter was only an attempt to make a 
 false record? Upon this point I wait 
 to know whether Mr. Tuttle will take 
 notice of Mr. Streeter’s bold challenge. 
 
 Meantime I ask Mr. Streeter to en- 
 lighten the public on these points: (1) 
 What measure or position of the rail- 
 road in all these years did he disap- 
 prove or dissent from? (2) What free 
 passes has he personally distributed or 
 
22 
 
 caused to be given away? When he 
 gave them he kept a list in order to 
 know what servants to call upon. (3) 
 Did lie give to Mr. Pillsbury the pass 
 on account of which he came to Con- 
 cord in January, 1901, and helped Mr. 
 Streeter work to elect Senator Burn- 
 ham? Mr. Pillsbury is now loudly call- 
 ing upon Mr. Tuttle for lists of passes. 
 I call upon Mr. Streeter for his lists. 
 
 Mr. E. C. Niles. 
 
 Mr. E. C. Niles has written a letter, 
 dated August 3, which in sweet rea- 
 sonableness is in refreshing contrast to 
 the caustic utterances of his coadjut- 
 ors, Mr. D. C. Remich and Mr. Pills- 
 bury. If Mr. Niles wrote the anti-free 
 pass resolution proposed by me to 
 Messrs. Currier, Sargent and Gilbert in 
 my letter of September 8th, 1904, I do 
 not remember the fact. I should like to 
 be convinced and give Mr. Niles credit 
 for it, in addition to the other good 
 work he has done for railroad reform. 
 If there were more self-assertion on the 
 part of genuine reformers like Mr. 
 Niles and Mr. Cook there would be less 
 arrogance on the part of bogus reform- 
 ers like Mr. Pillsbury and Mr. D. C. 
 Remich. 
 
 Mr. Niles says that when Mr. Sar- 
 gent, because it would be useless, de- 
 cided not to carry a free-pass fight into 
 the convention of 1904, “in this de- 
 termination Mr. Chandler concurred.” 
 This is inaccurate. I never agreed that 
 it would be a useless fight. Mr. Sar- 
 gent decided that it would be impolitic, 
 in view of the urgings against his 
 bringing on the fight as one member of 
 three of the committee. I defined my 
 attitude with the utmost care: that I 
 should make the fight in the conven- 
 tion if any one man would agree to 
 make it with me; that I would not 
 make it alone; and that I should not 
 in the slightest degree criticize him if 
 he did not then make a contest. 
 
 Mr. Niles says I am making an at- 
 tack on Mr. Pillsbury. Here is more 
 inaccuracy. I made no attack. Mr. 
 Pillsbury attacked me and Mr. Quinby, 
 in intemperate and unpermissible lan- 
 guage, and I make defense in permiss- 
 ible language. Mr. Niles quotes from 
 a paper of mine in 1904 the following: 
 
 “It is not intended to exclude from 
 participation in setting things right 
 any one who hitherto, in accordance 
 with the wrong custom now become in- 
 tolerably enlarged, may have himself 
 sometimes used free transportation. It 
 
 is sufficient, if now seeing the evil to 
 be over grown and pernicious, he 
 thinks the time has come for all men to 
 pay their fares and is willing to do his 
 part to bring about the coming re- 
 form.” 
 
 Mr. Niles adds: “That was good doc- 
 trine then, and it is good doctrine 
 now.” Most heartily do I agree to this. 
 But who begun violence this time? Mr. 
 Pillsbury and Mr. D. C. Remich are 
 hardly responsible human beings. Mr. 
 Niles, who begun it? Sustain your 
 charge. Quote the words. Was it a 
 crime to prefer some other nominee for 
 president than Mr. Taft? Is it a crime 
 to prefer Quinby to Pillsbury? Hence 
 these tears! 
 
 Is Present Moderation a Crime ? 
 
 Indeed, the gravamen of Mr. Pills- 
 bury’s attack on me, not my attack 
 upon him, is that at times I hav 3 used 
 harsh langurge towards individuals 
 and corporations which I do no,; keep 
 on using. That seems to be the com- 
 plaint of various reformers. W'ed, let 
 that be the issue. There is a time for 
 all things. “To everything there is a 
 season, and a time to e/er^ purpose 
 under the Heaven * * * a time to 
 
 kill and a time to heal * * * a time 
 of war and a time of peace.” — Eccl. iii. 
 
 When I was alone, with seemingly all 
 the statesmen, their pockets full of free 
 passes, against me, it doubtless was a 
 time for strong language. At all events, 
 * I shall not acknowledge the right of 
 Reformer Pillsbury, under the direc- 
 tion of Reformer Streeter, to order my 
 attacks upon the railroad managers or 
 the malefactors of great wealth. 
 
 From 25 years’ experience I know 
 when to do it and how to do it better 
 than they who have had no practice — 
 except within the last few months — 
 and who have all the indiscreet zeal 
 and unbecoming vehemence of new 
 and suspected converts who have been 
 criminals themselves. 
 
 The Nation of August 6, in an article 
 on “Statesmanship and Naval Rivalry,” 
 says: “One writer like Park Benjamin 
 may insist that a fleet of 12 battle- 
 ships on either coast is an adequate 
 navy for the United States, but forth- 
 with he is dubbed A TRAITOR for not 
 saying 16 or 20.” 
 
 Certainly no man who is (1) in favor 
 of postponing the correction of our tax 
 laws until after a constitutional 
 amendment has been proposed by a 
 convention called by the people, elected 
 
23 
 
 by the people, and approved at another 
 election by the people, (2) who is 
 against a physical valuation of the 
 railroads as a basis for fixing fares 
 and freights, and (3) who is in favor 
 of merging the Maine, New Hampshire 
 and Massachusetts railroads into the 
 New York, New Haven & Hartford 
 corporation should be permitted to re- 
 proach me either for too great modera- 
 tion or too great violence. 
 
 Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Chandler. 
 
 A woeful inaccuracy of Mr. Pills- 
 bury’s is to charge that Mr. Chandler 
 has declared that “We ought to help 
 Boston and Mr. Tuttle,” his reason be- 
 ing the above eight words given alone 
 from a sentence of mine, the whole of 
 which was this: 
 
 “It has been all that our state could 
 endure to surrender our railroads to 
 Boston and Mr. Tuttle. But we ought 
 to help Boston and Mr. Tuttle keep 
 the Boston & Maine and all its lines 
 out of Mr. Mellen’s control. Boston is 
 big enough and rich enough to finance 
 a Boston system, and New Hampshire 
 should help in the work. We cannot 
 undo many bad things of the past. We 
 can prevent many worse things in the 
 future.” 
 
 Mr. Mellen is now quoted as saying 
 to the New York city underground 
 railroads that if they do not give him 
 the facilities he desires he will build a 
 subway of his own through the city. 
 Mr. Mellen has already built a subway 
 from New York to New Hampshire. I 
 can see this end of it, with Mr. Pills- 
 bury peering out and Mr. Streeter look- 
 ing over his shoulder for a dark 
 moment in which to come home. I 
 wonder how much they brought back 
 with them! 
 
 If I have to choose betweeen two 
 despots, I prefer the nearest one, so I 
 can the more easily hit him. But 
 there are no relations whatever be- 
 tween me and Mr. Tuttle. I have no 
 sympathy with him for his past mis- 
 deeds. It is the irony of fate that his 
 two former slaves, Pillsbury and 
 Streeter, whom he relentlessly used to 
 destroy me in 1901, should now turn to 
 rend him to pieces. I always take an 
 interest when I see a bear fighting with 
 his own cubs. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury and the Amoskeag Cor- 
 poration. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury, on August 15th, added 
 another of the reforms of which he must 
 assume to be the greatest and almost 
 sole leader; that of the Amoskeag 
 corporation, which he virulently as- 
 sails for being, as he says, hostile to 
 him, and he is even reckless enough 
 to assert that Mr. W. Parker Straw has 
 said that “the Amoskeag proposed to 
 have delegates whom it could vote for 
 whomsoever it thought best at conven- 
 tion time.” So now the inaccurate Mr. 
 Pillsbury will claim that everybody 
 who does not prefer him to Mr. Quinby 
 is a tool of the Boston & Maine and 
 the Amoskeag corporation! It cannot 
 be that the astute Sherman E. Bur- 
 roughs is Mr. Pillsbury’s manager! 
 
 Republican Danger and Duty in State 
 and Nation. 
 
 My principal reason for practicing 
 moderation in the present canvass is 
 what I have already carefully stated: 
 (1) The danger of Republican defeat in 
 the state; and (2) the danger of like 
 defeat in the nation. Anyone who, in 
 August, presumes much on success in 
 November, is an unwise politician. 
 Between the methods of Pillsbury, 
 Remich and Streeter on the one side 
 and Quinby, Goodell and Gallinger on 
 the other, it should be easy for wise 
 and sane Republicans to make a 
 choice. To say that Mr. Quinby and 
 his supporters are any more likely to 
 betray the reform platform, which will 
 be framed without serious opposition — 
 open or secret — at the coming conven- 
 tion, is a charge deserving of the 
 strongest reprobation which, according 
 to either the Pillsbury rule or the Niles 
 rule, I could be allowed to make. 
 
 The Republicans of New Hampshire 
 will have no difficulty in determining 
 which of the above trios will take “re- 
 tainers” from Mr .Mellen when he, at 
 the time planned, carrying bags of 
 gold, emerges from the New Hamp- 
 shire end of the subway already pro- 
 vided between the New York, New 
 Haven & Hartford railroad and Mr. 
 Pillsbury and his supporters. Prudent 
 Republicans will be careful what load 
 the party shall bear in this presi- 
 dential year. Wm. E. Chandler. 
 
 August 17, 1908. 
 
THE MERGER 
 
 Letter from Mr. Chandler to Attorney-Gen- 
 eral Bonaparte of December 5, 1907, in Ar- 
 ticle in New England Magazine for May, 
 1908 
 
 For Massachusetts to allow the mer- 
 ger would be extreme folly. It will 
 utterly destroy all railroad competition 
 within New England and between Bos- 
 ton and the West, and transfer the 
 present railroad power of Boston to 
 New York City. Mr. Mellen avowed 
 that he desired to acquire the Boston 
 & Maine system that it might not get 
 into unfriendly hands ; that is, in or- 
 der that there should not be from Bos- 
 ton to the West any competition by 
 way of Albany and the New York Cen- 
 tral lines, with the New Haven line 
 through New York City and the Penn- 
 sylvania system. Does Boston wish to 
 help on this plan? If not, it should 
 stop the merger. On December 5, 
 1907, I called the subject to the atten- 
 tion of Attorney-General Bonaparte — 
 part of my letter being as follows: 
 
 “The Boston & Maine company has 
 lines extending from Boston west to 
 Northampton on the Connecticut river, 
 which are north of the New York & 
 New Haven lines and parallel thereto. 
 It has lines further north, going west 
 by the Hoosac tunnel across the Hud- 
 son river and joining the New York 
 Central lines at Rotterdam Junction, 
 N. Y. At Albany this line connects 
 with the Delaware and Hudson lines, 
 by which comes east coal from the 
 mines of Pennsylvania. By the West 
 Shore road the Boston & Maine has 
 friendly connection with Jersey City. 
 The result is that the Boston & Maine 
 and its allies can compete with the 
 New York & New Haven road for a 
 large miscellaneous business between 
 the Hudson river and Massachusetts. 
 Moreover, it is in a position to ac- 
 tively compete with the New York & 
 New Haven in transporting coal not 
 only to central and northern Massa- 
 chusetts, but also to Vermont, New 
 Plampshire and Maine. Undoubtedly 
 the principal object of the New York, 
 
 New Haven & Hartford company is to 
 stifle this competition in coal trans- 
 portation. Its lines, including the New 
 York, Ontario and Western, are con- 
 tinuous from Boston to Scranton, Penn- 
 sylvania. It controls water lines from 
 New York toward Boston. It is un- 
 questionably its purpose to monopolize 
 the traffic in coal from the great coal 
 regions to New England. 
 
 “All these facts appear very clearly 
 from the records of the government. 
 The attempt of the New York & New 
 Haven to so control the Boston & 
 Maine by purchasing its securities as 
 to accomplish a restraint of trade and 
 transportation is so plain that I cannot 
 doubt that the department of justice 
 will take steps to prevent the consum- 
 mation of the illegality which is in 
 progress in order to destroy the last 
 vestige of railroad competition in New 
 England. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Wm. E. Chandler.” 
 
 On December 10 the Attorney-Gen- 
 eral replied that he had forwarded my 
 letter to U. S. Attorney French at Bos- 
 ton for “careful consideration.” But 
 the Department of Justice is not likely 
 to reach a conclusion prior to June 
 16th. 
 
 The only reason of any importance 
 that I have seen for allowing the New 
 Haven road to seize the Boston & 
 Maine is that the New Haven is better 
 able to borrow the money with which 
 to make needed improvements to the 
 Boston & Maine lines. The mistake in 
 such a notion is clearly exposed by Mr. 
 Brandeis in his elaborate and con- 
 vincing statement of December, 1907. 
 It is weakness inconceivable for Bos- 
 ton to admit that she cannot finance 
 her own system of roads, but must go 
 to New York for the money. Boston 
 
25 
 
 can do it twice over with her own 
 capital. 
 
 It has been distasteful enough to the 
 people of Maine and New Hampshire 
 to surrender all their railroad lines to 
 the powers at Boston. To now see 
 Boston transfer those lines and all the 
 Massachusetts lines to the New Haven 
 road so that if a New Englander wishes 
 to seek its managers he must travel to 
 New York or Philadelphia would be 
 intolerable. Will Boston deliver itself 
 to such slavery? Must New England 
 meekly submit to such a blow? 
 
 Governor Guild well said in his mes- 
 sage of January 2: 
 
 “I believe it is worth trying by new 
 legislation not merely to escape the sur- 
 
 render of the relics of New England 
 control which we at present possess, 
 but to recover the control that we have 
 already lost, that not merely New Eng- 
 land legislatures but New England rail- 
 roads may strike at the shackles about 
 New England commerce, and stimulate 
 New England industry. . . . Nor 
 
 is this Massachusetts of ours unworthy 
 the Massachusetts of Andrew and Sum- 
 ner, of Hancock and Adams, of Endi- 
 cott and Winthrop. 
 
 “Let us strive to be worthy of the 
 ideals of our forefathers in past cen- 
 turies. Let us be not less worthy the 
 achievements of our brothers of to- 
 day.” 
 
 W. E. Chandler. 
 
AN APPEAL 
 
 For a Boston and New Hampshire Railroad 
 System and Against a New Haven and New 
 York System 
 
 While the Republicans of New 
 Hampshire are considering the outcome 
 of their national convention and the 
 Democrats are waiting for the program 
 of theirs, it is to be hoped that both 
 parties will decide to oppose the trans- 
 fer of the railroads of our state into 
 New York ownership and control. 
 
 The Boston & Maine now owns and 
 manages from Boston nearly all the 
 railroads of Maine and New Hamp- 
 shire, as well as important lines in 
 Vermont. It also operates two lines 
 across Central and Northern Massachu- 
 setts to the Hudson river and is a 
 competing railroad from all these re- 
 gions and Boston across the Hudson 
 to the Pennsylvania coal fields and to 
 Central and Northern New York and 
 the great West. 
 
 Nearly all the business carried as 
 above is done in direct competition 
 with the New York, New Haven and 
 Hartford east and west lines. The 
 power of. controlling these Boston & 
 Maine roads is of vast benefit to the 
 city and harbor of Boston. Shall it be 
 deliberately delivered to New York city 
 and used through favoritism to dis- 
 criminate against Boston and its trib- 
 utary country ; to build up the pros- 
 perity of New York at the expense of 
 Boston and New Hampshire and 
 Maine? 
 
 The Massachusetts legislature has 
 lately said NO to the demands of New 
 York city — which has illegally pur- 
 chased Boston & Maine railroad stock 
 enough to control that corporation. At- 
 torney-General Bonaparte and U. S. 
 District Attorney French of Boston 
 have also said NO, and have begun le- 
 gal proceedings to destroy the conspir- 
 acy. What is further needed is a pop- 
 ular sentiment taking effect in the leg- 
 islatures of January next which shall 
 reinforce and supplement all other 
 methods of securing the advantages of 
 an independent railroad system for 
 Boston and New Hampshire and 
 Maine, and shall prevent the slavery of 
 that city and those states to the 
 wealthy railroad owners at New York 
 city. 
 
 It is all folly to say that New York 
 city, even if given the power to do so, 
 
 will not discriminate against Boston, 
 nor build up at Boston’s expense New 
 Jersey and southern Pennsylvania and 
 the country extending westward along 
 the magnificent lines of the Pennsyl- 
 vania company. Human nature is 
 sometimes wicked and sometimes weak. 
 Shall New York city be wicked and 
 Boston city be weak? Shall New 
 Hampshire be weak and cowardly 
 when facing New York’s railroad mil- 
 lions? 
 
 Our state has already foolishly and 
 without sufficient safeguards surren- 
 dered all its railroad lines to Boston 
 control ; and until recently one man in 
 a Boston railroad office has dominated 
 and directed the politics of New Hamp- 
 shire. Now our Boston master is in 
 danger of being ruthlessly seized and 
 made a helpless servant of a New York 
 master. New Hampshire had better 
 help him preserve his Boston system. 
 
 The only pretense for submission to 
 New York and New Haven control is 
 that more capital is wanted to improve 
 the physical condition of the Boston & 
 Maine lines and that only New York 
 can furnish the money and the credit 
 needed. This argument is discredit- 
 able to Boston, which can easily finance 
 a Boston system of roads, making a 
 New England combination in every way 
 capable of supplying all demands for 
 improvement and development. If 
 Boston surrenders its railroad system 
 to New York ownership the city will 
 deserve to see, as once hitherto, every 
 ocean steamship withdrawn from sail- 
 ing between Boston and Europe and 
 transferred to New York harbor. 
 
 I ask the New Hampshire newspa- 
 pers to join the contest against the 
 merger — especially the Manchester 
 Union, whose treasurer is an anti-rail- 
 road candidate for governor. Republi- 
 cans should take the lead and the 
 Democrats will follow and our legisla- 
 ture will be unanimous against the seiz- 
 ure of our railroads by New York City. 
 It will be a blunder of the first magni- 
 tude for the Republicans to wait for 
 the Democrats to take the lead. 
 
 Wm. E. Chandler. 
 
 June 22, 1908. 
 
SUPPLEMENT 
 
 PEACE-HARMONY 
 
 MR. CHANDLER URGES THAT BY- 
 GONES BE BY-GONES. 
 
 Is Grateful to Stump Orators — Agrees 
 with Platform Republicans — While 
 the Lamp Holds Out to Burn the 
 Vilest Sinner May Return. 
 
 The free Republicans of New Hamp- 
 shire ought to be sincerely and pro- 
 foundly grateful to the reform orators 
 who are so energetically enlightening 
 others in their political duty to nominate 
 a candidate for governor who shall be 
 independent of the great railroad to 
 whose shortcomings and enormities, • 
 physical and political, they have re- 
 cently awakened. 
 
 Churchill and D. C. Remich Should 
 be Encouraged. 
 
 Messrs. Churchill and D. C. Remich 
 are especially to be thanked for having 
 repented of all their railroad subservi- 
 ency in the past and for their efforts to 
 undo some of the wrongs they did while 
 laboring and voting to sustain the free 
 pass system, which has been at the 
 bottom of all our railroad woes, form- 
 ing their strongest and most im- 
 pregnable support. 
 
 Pillsbury’s Repentance Most Gratify- 
 ing. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury also should be wel- 
 comed to the rostrum by attentive 
 audiences, and if they think his repent- 
 ance is deep and penetrating and that 
 his promises for the future are sincere, 
 they should nominate him for governor 
 — if they cannot find a better repre- 
 sentative of reform. 
 
 Francis H. Buffum, Free Pass Orator 
 — a Delightful Penitent. 
 
 There are others remorseful. Here 
 comes my friend Reverend Francis H. 
 Buffum; a convert, a repentant, an 
 unexpected orator of righteousness; a 
 Saul of wickedness converted into a 
 Paul of goodness and glory. My heart 
 was pierced by an arrow of grief when 
 in the legislature of 1907, he held aloft 
 the free pass which the wicked Tuttle 
 had horribly forced upon him, and cried 
 out: “ This is what we wanted and this 
 is what we mean to keep.” And they 
 did! 
 
 Now a great light has come to him 
 and he is doing works meet for repent- 
 ance. He should be welcomed and 
 added to the quartette — Churchill, 
 Remich, Pillsbury and Streeter — mak- 
 ing five instead of four distinguished 
 citizens who are entitled as penitents 
 at the altar to invite other sinners to 
 the confessional and the imperative 
 work of righteousness. 
 
 Mr. Streeter Much Needed on the 
 
 Rostrum — He Can Furnish Written 
 Evidence. 
 
 The most competent member of the 
 quintette, Mr. Streeter, is, however, in- 
 excusably absent from duty without 
 leave. He led the movement of the 
 penitents to Boston where they assured 
 Mr. Taft of their omnipotence and took 
 the leadership of his movement in New 
 Hampshire. Now if Pillsbury is neces- 
 sary to the salvation of Taft, if the 
 only candidate who can ward off the 
 fearful Remich threat that the Demo- 
 cratic judge, George H. Bingham, shall 
 be the next governor, there can be no 
 repentant sinner put upon the stump 
 who can make clear the need of re- 
 form and Pillsbury like Mr. Streeter. 
 He knows all past wickedness; for he 
 was a leader and disseminator of it all. 
 What a vision he could unfold of 
 moneys corruptly expended and passes 
 distributed for dishonest purposes ! 
 Details from others would not be 
 needed ; he can give them all and be 
 
2 
 
 a chosen vessel of wrath and a useful 
 instrument in forever purging New 
 Hampshire politics of the slightest 
 taint of Mr. Tuttle’s railroad wicked- 
 ness. 
 
 Mercy and Charity for Everybody. 
 
 But while these apostles of purity 
 and righteousness should be welcomed 
 in their sincere advocacy of reform, 
 they should be charitable to others. 
 Each one of them should say : . ‘ ‘ That 
 mercy I to others show, that mercy 
 show to me.” Let by-gones be by- 
 gones. Do not reproach Colonel Quin- 
 by on account of any fault that can 
 be found in his record as an offset to 
 all his good deeds. Rather say, “We 
 are all miserable sinners,” and then go 
 ahead with new works of righteous- 
 ness. 
 
 A Glance at By-Gones Only to Dis- 
 miss Them Forever. 
 
 When the legislature of 1897 gave Mr. 
 Tuttle the power to donate free passes 
 to paupers “ and others,” Mr. Pillsburv 
 as a member, did his part. 
 
 In the legislature of 1899 a provision 
 against free passes was shunted to a con- 
 stitutional convention. Mr. D. C. Rem- 
 ich advocated this trick and voted 
 for it. Mr. Pillsbury voted for it. 
 
 In the convention of 1902 every mem- 
 ber had a free pass. Mr. Streeter had 
 distributed them and presided, and a 
 clause against free passes was voted 
 down, 221 to 101; Mr. Pillsbury voting 
 for free passes. 
 
 In the legislature of 1903 the light 
 was renewed, and action against free 
 passes negatived, 191 to 140. Winston 
 Churchill voted for free passes. D. C. 
 Remich voted against them ! 
 
 In the legislature of 1905 nothing was 
 done against free passes. Reformers 
 Churchill and Pillsbury were members. 
 
 InU. S. Sen. Document 63 of January 
 14, 1899, in the list of free-pass-riders on 
 page 19 is to be found: “ R. W. Pills- 
 bury complimentary ”; and on page 29, 
 “R. W. Pillsbury, services.” 
 
 In January, 1901, Mr. John W. San- 
 born and Mr. F. S. Streeter, coadjutor, 
 summoned to Concord Mr. Pillsbury 
 with hundreds of other annual pass- 
 holders to defeat me for re-election as 
 senator — which they did. Mr. Pillsbury 
 has made public confession; but says 
 that he went home disgusted. Yet he 
 
 was noisy and vehement in his hostility 
 to me; and during the last moments 
 of the canvass, just before the caucus, 
 he was boisterously offering to bet 
 money that I would be defeated by a 
 big majority for Mr. Burnham. 
 
 To the Republicans of New Hamp- 
 shire and to the above quintette with 
 their own records before them ; to 
 Messrs. Churchill, sinner, Remich, sin- 
 ner, Pillsbury, sinner, and Buffum, 
 sinner, and Streeter, chief of sinners, I 
 submit that there should be no crim- 
 ination and no recrimination ; but that 
 all of us should unite in securing from 
 a true and willing state convention 
 suitable anti-railroad and anti-corrup- 
 tion declarations, and the nomination 
 of a candidate whose character and 
 temperament fit him for the canvass 
 and for the becoming performance of 
 duty when inaugurated as governor. 
 
 A Gentle and Gentlemanly Candidate 
 Needed. 
 
 Is Mr. Pillsbury such a candidate, in- 
 asmuch as he began his active canvass 
 this year by saying of Governor Floyd, 
 whom in 1906 he had begged should 
 be nominated, that he was nominated 
 by “fraud, bribery, corruption and 
 ballot-box stuffing ’ ’ and that he is seek- 
 ing to name his successor “ by the same 
 corrupt methods”; and by attacking 
 Senator Gallinger, Mr. Quinby, Mr. W. 
 Parker Straw and various other gentle- 
 men of ordinarily decent behavior; as 
 well as all the weekly newspaper pro- 
 prietors of the state? 
 
 Is our state ticket to be strengthened 
 by Mr. Pillsbury as a candidate ; is Mr. 
 Taft’s plurality to be made adequate 
 by such a leader of that ticket? 
 
 The Oratory Good — The Platform 
 
 Republicans on the Right Track. 
 
 So far as the speeches made by the 
 orators now before the public relate to 
 other propositions than a demand for 
 Mr. Pillsbury’s nomination, they seem, 
 as a general statement, to be apt and 
 meritorious. Exceptions might be 
 named. Commendable also are most of 
 the principles asserted by the Platform 
 Republicans, Professor James A. Tufts, 
 chairman, Mr. Sherman E. Burroughs, 
 principal exponent. 
 
 Their requests, mostly just, will be 
 complied with by the state convention. 
 There is no need of the pending public 
 
3 
 
 meetings to secure the adoption of the 
 principles advocated. But to hold such 
 meetings is the privilege and the duty 
 of the speakers; and they should go 
 forward if for no other reason in order 
 to afford a relief for the over-burdened 
 consciences of the late servants of Mr. 
 Tuttle. There is also much need of 
 them if Republicans are to be con- 
 vinced that Mr. Pillsbury is the best 
 candidate for governor. 
 
 How About Tax Laws, Physical Val- 
 uation and Anti-Merger? — Questions 
 
 Asked of the Orators and Platforms, 
 Are They to be Answered? 
 
 It is with regret that as an earnest 
 sympathizer with the orators now upon 
 the stump and with the Platform Re- 
 publicans who have succeeded the Lin- 
 coln club in their anti-railroad cam- 
 paign, I am obliged to differ from them 
 in some particulars, if I understand 
 their attitude rightly. I make my 
 points by asking them these questions : 
 
 Messrs. Churchill, Pillsbury, D. C. 
 Remich, Streeter, Buffum, Burroughs 
 and Tufts: 
 
 I. 
 
 Are you in favor of immediate legis- 
 lation so changing the existing law 
 that special taxes imposed under the 
 amended constitution shall not be 
 taken into account in order to reduce 
 the taxation of the railroads below that 
 of the great bulk of the taxable prop- 
 erty in the state ? 
 
 II. 
 
 Are you in favor of a physical valua- 
 tion of the railroads of the state as a 
 basis for fixing fares and freights, 
 without allowing dividends and interest 
 on fictitious capitalization? 
 
 III. 
 
 Are you opposed to the merger of the 
 New Hampshire and Boston railroads 
 with the New York & New Haven 
 corporation; taking the ownership and 
 control thereof from Boston to New 
 York city? 
 
 These questions are vital to the pub- 
 lic welfare and extremely pertinent. 
 
 The Platform Republicans have said 
 that they are in favor of postponing 
 all questions of taxation until (1) the 
 legislature provides for a vote of the 
 people on calling a constitutional con- 
 vention, (2) the people vote to call it, 
 
 (3) an election of members, (4) the 
 meeting of the convention and the 
 framing of amendments, (5) the adop- 
 tion of those amendments by the people 
 and (6) the meeting of the legislature 
 to act thereunder. The Platform Re- 
 publicans have said nothing on the 
 physical valuation or the merger. On 
 August 15tli I asked Professor Tufts to 
 speak on these points, but he has not 
 yet done so. Mr. Pillsbury, as a part 
 of his proclamation of his candidacy, 
 declared that the merger would be 
 beneficial to New Hampshire — and has 
 not avowed a change of opinion, so to- 
 day he stands as a merger candidate. 
 
 What do you say to my questions, 
 Messrs. Churchill, Pillsbury, D. O. Rem- 
 ich, Streeter, Buffum, Burroughs and 
 Tufts? Can you give any good reason 
 for not defining your positions as the 
 self- elected new leaders of Railroad 
 Reform in New Hampshire? 
 
 Wm. E. Chandler. 
 
 August 28, 1908. 
 
 WINSTON CHURCHILL. 
 
 Mr. William E. Chandler says that 
 Winston Churchill is an impossible per- 
 son. He means, doubtless, a person so 
 strange in his statements and behavior 
 that it is impossible for ordinary mortals 
 to do business with him; a person nearer 
 to being one daft than a sane person and 
 who must therefore be ignored in com- 
 mon life and allowed to write unintelli- 
 gible matter to be disregarded by com- 
 monsense people. 
 
 When such a person says, as the Man- 
 chester Union of August 24 records, 
 that Quinby, when writing the Repub- 
 lican platform, “as a matter of fact 
 copied in ink what we gentlemen who 
 are identified with the reform move- 
 ment have written IN BLOOD,” it is 
 only to laugh. 
 
 In truth, Mr. Chandler wrote the 
 platform, was not aware that it was a 
 bloody deed, and we happen to know he 
 never uses red ink. 
 
 But it is a more serious question when 
 Mr. Churchill deliberately puts forth 
 continually monstrous falsehoods, as the 
 Manchester Union of August 22 says he 
 did. The Boston & Maine railroad never 
 undertook the defeat of Mr. Taft. Mr. 
 Mellen and Mr. Tuttle both announced 
 themselves in favor of Mr. Taft. The 
 state convention of April 21 expressed 
 no wish except one — that there should 
 be no preference resolution for Mr. Taft, 
 
4 
 
 and it said this by a rising vote of 750 
 against 25. 
 
 It is beginning to dawn upon ns that 
 common honest politicians should ex- 
 clude Mr. Churchill from consideration 
 or discussion when he makes, as the 
 Union of August 22 reports him, a state- 
 ment like the following: 
 
 “ The Boston & Maine machine un- 
 dertook the defeat of Mr. Taft previous 
 to his visit to the state and when the 
 sentiment for him made itself so promi- 
 nent they conceived and carried out the 
 idea of an uninstructed delegation, 
 which permitted three of the eight dele- 
 gates to cast their votes contrary to the 
 EXPRESSED WISH of the convention 
 which elected them.” 
 
 — Concord Monitor , Sept. 1, 1908. 
 
 REPUBLICAN RALLIES. 
 
 One progressive issue of the campaign 
 is: Shall the New Hampshire railroads 
 be sold to New York city? Mr. Pillsbury 
 has declared in favor of this sale and 
 the speakers now on the stump do not 
 deny that they favor it. 
 
 Mr. Burroughs does not answer my 
 inquiries of July 31st and August 10th, 
 nor Professor Tufts my inquiry of Au- 
 gust 15tb. 
 
 In the absence of denial, I charge that 
 the present movement to make Mr. 
 Pillsbury governor has for one progres- 
 sive issue the merger of the New Hamp- 
 shire railroads with the New York and 
 New Haven corporation. 
 
 Are the Republicans of New Hamp- 
 shire in favor of this merger ? 
 
 Wm. E. Chandler 
 
 REMICH--PILLSBURY. 
 
 THEIR OPINION OF EACH OTHER. 
 
 [ Concord Monitor , Aug . 3 1 , 1 908 . ] 
 
 On the evening of Friday, August 28, 
 General Daniel C. Remich of Littleton 
 appeared on the public platform at 
 Milford, advocating the nomination of 
 Rosecrans W. Pillsbury for governor. 
 According to the Manchester Union’s 
 report of the meeting, published in that 
 paper on Saturday, August 29, the chair- 
 man ‘ ‘ paid a glowing tribute to General 
 Remich, whom he introduced as one of 
 
 the great reform leaders in the state.” 
 From the same report it is to be learned 
 that “ Mr. Remich closed with a glow- 
 ing tribute to Mr. Pillsbury.” 
 
 The words of this “ glowing tribute ” 
 are, unfortunately, not printed at great 
 length. It is a pity that they are not 
 available. It may be, however, that 
 their tenor may be judged from a letter 
 which Mr. Remich wrote to Mr. Pills- 
 bury on September 21, 1906, which reads 
 as follows : 
 
 ‘ ‘ I have carefully read your explana- 
 tion in today’s Union as to why you 
 withdrew from the Republican conven- 
 tion in favor of Mr. Floyd, and asked 
 your delegates to support him. You 
 suggest therein that you have been 
 ‘ charged with treachery to Colonel 
 Churchill.’ 
 
 “ I do not believe that any supporter 
 of Colonel Churchill ever made such a 
 statement, for the reason that for many 
 months the members of the Lincoln club 
 and the other supporters of Mr. Churchill 
 have been thoroughly convinced that 
 you were a sham reformer and have 
 therefore expected nothing at your 
 hands. Being of this opinion, the friends 
 of Mr. Churchill gave out a statement 
 to the reporters, Monday night, that 
 ‘ Mr. Churchill would not withdraw in 
 favor of any candidate, or make any 
 compromise; that he stood for great 
 principles of vital importance to the 
 state; that he would either win the 
 nomination or go down to an honorable 
 defeat. ’ 
 
 “You are well aware that early in 
 your campaign I appealed to you many 
 times to come out squarely for the re- 
 forms which the Lincoln club have since 
 advocated. You refused to accept my 
 advice and continued to trim your sails 
 to catch the votes of all classes and con- 
 ditions, especially the support of the 
 Boston & Maine railroad. At that time 
 I wrote you an open letter, begging of 
 you ‘ to nail your flag to the mast, ’ and 
 stand for the principles which we have 
 succeeded in getting incorporated into 
 the Republican platform, and suggested 
 that ‘ all the world hated a trimmer. ’ 
 My letter was so unsatisfactory that you 
 refused to publish it. 
 
 ‘ ‘ Do not waste any time trying to ex- 
 plain your conduct to members of the 
 Lincoln club, or to the delegates that 
 stood by Winston Churchill from first 
 to last. If you have any explanation 
 that will meet the approval of honorable 
 men, you had better give it to the 204 
 
5 
 
 magnificent men who so loyally- sup- 
 ported you, until you withdrew in favor 
 of Mr. Floyd, who really believed that 
 you were a reformer and could be de- 
 pended upon, — such men as Sherman E. 
 Burroughs of Manchester and Lester 
 Thurber of Nashua. They have a right 
 to charge you with base treachery, and 
 every honorable man who knows the 
 facts will justify them in making the 
 charge. 
 
 “ 1900 years ago there lived a Judas 
 Iscariot ; in Revolutionary times we 
 had a Benedict Arnold; we now have a 
 Rosencrans (sic) W. Pillsbury.” 
 
 The Union of August 29, to which we 
 have referred, does not say whether it 
 endorses the encomium upon General 
 Remich as “one of the great reform 
 leaders of the state ” ; but in the Union 
 of twenty-three months earlier, to wit, 
 in the issue of September 29, 1906, there 
 appears, on the first page, a letter from 
 Mr. Pillsbury to Mr. Remich bearing 
 these headlines : “ Mr. Pillsbury to Dan 
 Remich . . . Open Reply in Response to 
 Latter’s Assertions . . . Some Forgotten 
 Letters . . . Trickery of Churchill Sup- 
 porters Pointed Out . . . Londonderry 
 Man Pays His Respects to the Profes- 
 sional Politicians. . . . Ante-Convention 
 Promises That Were not Kept by Mak- 
 ers.” From this letter the following 
 paragraphs are taken: 
 
 “With characteristic misrepresenta- 
 tion for which the people of the state 
 know you so well, you state,” etc. 
 
 “You have become so discredited that 
 the people refuse to permit you to rep- 
 resent them even as a convention dele- 
 gate.” 
 
 “ Both you and Churchill were always 
 reckoned among the ‘railroad forces’ 
 when you have been in the legislature, 
 and you have constantly trained with 
 them until you lost your annual ‘ pass,’ 
 and Colonel Churchill found that the 
 people of his district preferred another 
 for the senate and the ‘ railroad forces ’ 
 would not endeavor to upset things and 
 put him in. You admit your constancy 
 in your letter to President Kimball, in 
 saying: ‘ I should continue as in the 
 past to promote your interests,’ ” etc. 
 
 “ It may not be as generally known 
 that Churchill early last winter solicited 
 one of the leading Boston and Maine 
 attorneys to ‘ fix it ’ so that he could go 
 to the senate if his affairs should be such 
 that he could spend the time, and as late 
 as the springtime again made the request 
 ‘ if not too late.’ But finding, after an- 
 nouncing his candidacy, that it had not 
 been ‘ fixed,’ and that a man who was 
 living in the state the year through long 
 before his securing a summer home here, 
 and who was familiar with state affairs 
 and had done long service as a Republi- 
 can, was manifestly preferred by the 
 voters, he yielded to your importunities, 
 after you had met with rebuff in many 
 other quarters, and consented to become 
 your candidate with a common griev- 
 ance against the railroad, which he de- 
 clared later in the campaign was his 
 ‘ only issue.’ Your ‘ principles ’ are less 
 than eight months yours; up to that 
 time you and your candidate were with 
 the ‘ railroad.’ ” 
 
 “As to being a sham reformer I am 
 ready to place my record in public af- 
 fairs against yours. I have never under- 
 taken lobbying; you have. I have never 
 attempted blackmail of men seeking leg- 
 islation ; your experience in reference to 
 the charter of the New Hampshire Trust 
 Company is known to many, but I for- 
 bear the details. It is not the only in- 
 teresting experience that well-informed 
 men relate as to your career. ’ ’ 
 
 These “ tributes,” we submit, are quite 
 as ‘ ‘ glowing’ ’ as any which have been 
 declaimed on the stump this year. They 
 were not struck off in the burning heat 
 of an orator’s passion. They were writ- 
 ten in cold blood, revised, corrected and 
 given out for publication deliberately. 
 They are an interesting and an instruc- 
 tive feature of a canvass like this which 
 is now drawing to a close ; and they go 
 far to show whether Mr. Pillsbury and 
 his comrades are, by their own opinions 
 of each other, fit persons to receive the 
 administration of state affairs or the 
 direction of the Republican party in 
 New Hampshire. 
 
f 
 
 AFTERWORD 
 
 Mr. Chandler’s Outline of Facts in History of 
 Railroad Reform 
 
 The New Republican Leaders in New Hamp- 
 shire— Messrs. Churchill and Pillsbury, 
 
 D. C. Remich and Streeter — The 
 Lamb and the Wplf— The 
 Hornet and the 
 Spider 
 
 As an afterword to my pamphlet on 
 “Railroad Reform in New Hampshire, 
 Ancient, Modern and Future,” and to 
 my other papers added to the first, I 
 conclude merely to outline the facts 
 which stand out from those writings 
 and other current political history. 
 
 I — The Day of Slavery. 
 
 Prior to 1901, New Hampshire for 20 
 years or more had been in a state of 
 slavery to railroad free passes and 
 railroad political domination corruptly 
 obtained and wickedly used. During 
 all that period, although the facts were 
 steadily proclaimed publicly by me, yet 
 I was joined in my protest by not over 
 two or three influential citizens of the 
 state. All the others, including sub- 
 stantially all the politicians, either 
 joined in or succumbed to railroad pow- 
 er and free passes. 
 
 In January, 1901, after having been 
 renominated for United States sena- 
 tor in 1895 by 224 to 59, I was defeated 
 by 198 for Burnham, 47 for Chandler, 29 
 for Baker, 23 for Sulloway and 22 for 
 Quinby. The leaders of the movement 
 Who conducted the corrupt canvass 
 against me from room two, Eagle ho- 
 tel, Concord, were Mr. John W. San- 
 born and Mr. Frank S. Streeter, aided 
 by Mr. Rosecrans W. Pillsbury, who 
 was craven in his servility to the rail- 
 road, while noisy and vehement in his 
 hostility to me. (See Mr. Pillsbury’s 
 
 confession, in his own recent words on 
 page 13) — and with my defeat there en- 
 sued a deeper submission than ever to 
 railroad slavery, with apparently no 
 prospect whatever of any rebellion for 
 years to come. 
 
 II— The Dawn of Freedom in Nation 
 and State. 
 
 Most fortunately, in 1904, with the 
 election as president by the people of 
 Theodore Roosevelt, came national rail- 
 road reform. Railroad corruption and 
 free passes were condemned and for- 
 bidden and the prospect of freedom 
 from railroad and plutocratic domina- 
 tion of the national and state govern- 
 ments came in sight. In New Hamp- 
 shire, in 1906, the Lincoln club was 
 formed, and its principles adopted and 
 proclaimed without objection by the 
 Republican state convention. Progress 
 was necessarily made by piecemeal, but 
 Governor Floyd was true to the plat- 
 form, the legislature passed useful leg- 
 islation, although not sufficient, and 
 the session adjourned with prospects 
 bright for the easy and complete suc- 
 cess of at least railroad reform in New 
 Hampshire, coincident with like pro- 
 gress in the nation, under the aus- 
 pices of the national administration; — 
 and the simple minded dozen managers 
 of the Lincoln club dissolved their or- 
 ganization. 
 
28 
 
 III— The Day of Cunning Plot and 
 Selfish Conspiracy. 
 
 With the field abandoned by the Lin- 
 coln club, Mr. Churchill fell into a new 
 scheme. On the 27th day of May, 1907, 
 he met Mr. Pillsbury and agreed with 
 him not to be again a candidate for 
 governor, but in due time to announce 
 himself in favor of Pillsbury for gov- 
 ernor, which he did. The two associated 
 themselves with Mr. Streeter, who had 
 discharged himself or been discharged 
 as the chief railroad attorney and 
 political agent. They had made him 
 national committeeman to the defeat of 
 Senator Gallinger. He had been in 1906 
 a candidate to be a Greenleaf delegate 
 from Ward Four, Concord, but had 
 been defeated, and had procured a 
 Greenleaf proxy and voted steadily for 
 Mr. Pillsbury. Here were two prac- 
 ticed schemers and one novice. The plan 
 was simple; the rewards to be great. 
 They created themselves the leaders of 
 the Taft movement in New Hampshire 
 and the managers of railroad reform in 
 the state; and with a few associates 
 they waited upon Mr. Taft in Boston, 
 announced their leadership and ten- 
 dered him the New Hampshire delega- 
 tion to Chicago. With the strong tend- 
 ency among New Hampshire Republi- 
 cans to think that a more available 
 and equally sagacious and capable can- 
 didate for president could be found, 
 they succeeded in making an issue on 
 instructions or preference resolutions 
 which gave them prominence as Taft 
 boomers. The story is well known. On 
 a test vote which they forced in the 
 convention they were defeated, 750 to 25. 
 
 Mr. Taft was nominated, but still they 
 went pressing on; Mr. Churchill, not 
 to be governor but to have a cabinet 
 place or foreign mission; Mr. Pillsbury 
 to be governor; Mr. Streeter to be a 
 United States senator or a United 
 States judge. One more associate with 
 traits like the worst of theirs was 
 needed and found in Mr. D. C. Remich. 
 When Mr. Pillsbury in the convention 
 of 1906 had swung over to Mr. Floyd, 
 Mr. Remich had called him a Judas 
 Iscariot and a Benedict Arnold; but 
 what was a little difference like that 
 among friends engaged in their con- 
 spiracy? They decided to face the 
 world as the original Taft champions 
 and as the genuine railroad reformers— 
 Streeter, who had been the great chief- 
 tain of railroad wickedness; Pillsbury 
 and Remich, the constant free pass 
 
 riders and railroad slaves, and Church- 
 ill, the sickened politician and guileless 
 novelist. 
 
 There would seem not to be, — indeed 
 would not be — any reason for giving 
 attention to such a presumptuous 
 movement towards political leadership 
 and power were it not that there is a 
 possibility of its success. This grows 
 only out of the neglect and failure of 
 the Lincoln club to present any candi- 
 date. The only man discussed ran 
 away from his duty. The Platform 
 Republicans are a new and slow birth; 
 they ask for the adoption of principles 
 and seek to elect true legislators, but 
 they have reached no choice for gov- 
 ernor and have condemned the one 
 candidate most likely to carry to suc- 
 cess with perfect fidelity the reform 
 principles which will be adopted by the 
 state convention. Behind the Streeter- 
 Pillsbury-Remich movement .is the 
 Manchester Union — which is a great 
 power, constantly pounding at the 
 gates of the Republican voters. These 
 are motive power in favor of Pillsbury. 
 
 Can a Candidate thus help Nominate 
 Himself? 
 
 But, on the other hand, the course of 
 Messrs. Pillsbury, Streeter, Remich and 
 the men they control seems to be such 
 as to make it absolutely impossible that 
 Mr. Pillsbury should succeed in obtain- 
 ing the nomination for governor. May 
 it be supposed that the others do not 
 expect this and do not card, if they 
 can use temporarily Mr. Pillsbury and 
 the Union for their other purposes? 
 
 The real leaders of a political party, 
 however earnest in fact may be the 
 controversies leading up to a nomina- 
 tion for a candidate to be voted for by 
 the people on election day, do not wish 
 any candidate himself to speak vio- 
 lently or abusively; or to assail bitterly 
 any members of his own party by 
 speech or writing, prior to the nomina- 
 tion. If such work is to be done it is 
 done by others. Such a candidate is 
 never nominated. 
 
 Is it possible that the result can be 
 otherwise in Mr. Pillsbury’ s case? 
 Mark what, while pressing his candi- 
 dacy, he and his above associates have 
 done to arouse natural and inevitable 
 opposition to him in his own party! 
 
 I— The Attack upon Senator Gallinger 
 
 Their attacks upon Mr. Tuttle, in 
 view of their abandonment of further 
 
29 
 
 service for him and their desire to 
 punish their former master, may be 
 allowable. But what excuse is there 
 for their early and unjust and unkind 
 assaults upon Senator Gallinger — even 
 if their plan is to have Mr. Streeter 
 take his place as senator? Do such at- 
 tacks tend to nominate Mr. Pillsbury 
 and to retire Senator Gallinger? 
 
 II— Obloquy Heaped on the Country 
 Weekly Papers. 
 
 The country weekly newspapers of 
 New Hampshire are not rich — perhaps 
 their circulation is not large. It is not 
 large for any one of them, but as a 
 whole they have a vast number of 
 readers. Why should the treasurer of 
 the Manchester Union — hoping to be 
 governor — invite their hostility by irri- 
 tating and unkind assaults in his pre- 
 tentious sheet? Will those help us 
 elect him if he is nominated? 
 
 Ill— The Attack on Gov. Floyd. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury’s violent attack upon 
 Governor Floyd is incomprehensible, 
 coming from a man who expects to be 
 nominated and elected as the governor’s 
 successor. 
 
 Two years ago Mr. Pillsbury begged 
 to have Floyd nominated, when he saw 
 himself defeated. Today he says he 
 was nominated by ‘fraud, bribery, cor- 
 ruption and ballot-box stuffing,” and is 
 trying to name his successor “by the 
 same corrupt methods.” 
 
 Can we elect such a man governor, 
 even if we nominate him? 
 
 IV — Mr. Pillsbury’s Assault on the 
 Amoskeag Corporation. 
 
 As if he had not heavily enough bur- 
 dened himself with enemies, Mr. Pills- 
 bury drags into his newspaper and de- 
 nounces the Amoskeag Manufacturing 
 company, and asserts that its man- 
 agers, like those of the Boston & Maine 
 railroad, are seeking to control our 
 politics. On August 15th the Union 
 boldly said of Mr. W. Parker Straw 
 that he had asserted that “the Amos- 
 keag proposes to have delegates whom 
 it could vote for whomsoever it thought 
 best at convention time,” and after the 
 Mirror on the same day denied the 
 truth of the charge the Union re- 
 peated it on August 17, speaking of 
 Treasurer Dumaine thus: 
 
 “From his Boston office and environ- 
 ment he manifestly agrees with Mr. 
 Tuttle that things political should be 
 
 done here regardless of all attempts 
 and wishes on the part of friends in 
 New Hampshire.” 
 
 “Mr. Dumaine came from Boston 
 with the information that the mills 
 should be shut down entirely for two 
 weeks ending Labor Day and that tick- 
 ets for delegates to the state conven- 
 tion in opposition to the Pillsbury 
 ticket should be arranged.” 
 
 Must we nominate a governor who 
 thus heedlessly seeks the enmity of a 
 corporation so many of whose owners 
 and operatives we expect to vote for 
 our candidate for governor and for Mr. 
 Taft for president? What has the 
 Amoskeag yet done to require such 
 treatment? 
 
 V— Mr. Pillsbury’s Denunciation of 
 
 Col. Quinby. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury’s assault upon Colonel 
 Quinby is most censurable; an impos- 
 sible thing for any candidate to do— ex- 
 cept Mr. Pillsbury. Colonel Quinby 
 would not, in order to be governor, per- 
 sonally assail Mr. Pillsbury as he has 
 been himself assailed by the latter. 
 That is not a candidate’s proper func- 
 tion — personal abuse of his contestant 
 for a nomination to come from the 
 political party to which they both be- 
 long. The false charges made and re- 
 iterated by the Union against Mr. 
 Quinby make Mr. Pillsbury a most un- 
 available candidate for governor. 
 
 VI— Mr. Pillsbury’s Committal to the 
 
 Railroad Merger. 
 
 With all these impolitic attacks made 
 by Mr. Pillsbury as a candidate, there 
 is one scheme of transcendent import- 
 ance to New Hampshire— perhaps more 
 than all the other subjects which he 
 and the Union undertake to discuss in 
 reference to his candidacy. He does not 
 denounce the merger of the Boston and 
 New Hampshire railroads into the New 
 York & New Haven system. If the 
 people of New Hampshire ought to 
 arouse themselves in view of any 
 threatening calamity, it should be 
 against the merger scheme — which is 
 not dead but only sleeping. But this 
 is what Mr. Pillsbury said in its favor 
 as a part of his platform on which he 
 proclaimed himself a candidate for gov- 
 ernor: “In my judgment the proposed 
 merger of the Boston & Maine and the 
 New York, New Haven & Hartford 
 railroads would be beneficial to the in- 
 dustrial interests of the state.” This 
 
30 
 
 merger question is discussed by me on 
 other pages. It should have a wise and 
 thoughtful examination by all New 
 Hampshire voters. 
 
 The Danger of Defeat at the Polls. 
 
 It is my duty to continue to empha- 
 size the danger of state and national 
 defeat for the Republicans. No wise 
 man will belittle the danger. Local 
 fights in New Hampshire, New York 
 and Ohio are making doubtful both lo- 
 cal elections and the presidential con- 
 test. 
 
 Shall Messrs. Pillsbury and Streeter 
 and Remich make doubtful the result 
 in New Hampshire? Mr. Remich is their 
 spokesman when he says: 
 
 “If they * * * * succeed in nom- 
 inating Henry B. Quinby they will see 
 George H. Bingham * * * * or some 
 other * * * * Democrat of his 
 
 stamp occupying the gubernatorial 
 chair.” 
 
 The above seems to be the attitude 
 of the three former agents and servants 
 of the Boston & Maine railroad. They 
 say: We are to be the controlling 
 leaders of the Republican party of New 
 Hampshire. We are the confidential 
 and only representatives of Taft and 
 Hitchcock and have a steam-roller of 
 our own which we will use to crush all 
 opponents. If we cannot do it we will 
 elect a Democrat, Mr. George H. Bing- 
 ham, as governor. 
 
 It can hardly be that the sensible and 
 true Republicans of New Hampshire 
 have fallen into such cowardice as to 
 submit to the degradation which is 
 now threatened against them by the 
 New York, New Haven & Hartford 
 railroad and its agents. 
 
 Wm. E. Chandler. 
 
 August 24, 1908. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
PLATFORM REPUBLICANS. 
 
 Mr. Chandler Submits a Request for a Call 
 for a Meeting. 
 
 Concord, N. H., August 15, 1908. 
 Professor James A. Tufts, President of the Platform 
 
 Republicans , Exeter , N. II. 
 
 Dear Sir : I have the honor to request that you will 
 call a meeting of the Platform Republicans for the pur- 
 pose of considering three questions : 
 
 (1) The elimination from the platform of Article 7 
 providing for the postponement of all legislation relative 
 to taxation until after further opinions of the judges and 
 the adoption of new constitutional amendments ; 
 
 (2) The question of demanding the physical valuation 
 of the railroads of the state for the purpose of aiding in 
 the determination what are to be just rates of fares and 
 freights ; 
 
 (3) The approaching merger of the New Hampshire 
 railroads with the New York, New Haven and Hartford 
 corporation and the transfer of their control from Boston 
 to New York City. 
 
 In your call please define with precision what rights 
 and privileges in companionship with the 29 are to be 
 possessed and enjoyed by the senders-in of their names. 
 
 Very respectfully yours, 
 
 Wm. E. Chandler. 
 
 Exeter, August 19, 1908. 
 
 Hon. Wm. E. Chandler. 
 
 My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 15th was not 
 received until the 17th. It shall have my early con- 
 sideration and you shall hear from me again. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 J. A. Tufts. 
 
 [No reply received up to September 7.] 
 
THE NEW LEADERS OF 
 
 RAILROAD REFORM 
 
 IN NEW HAMPSHIRE 
 1908 
 
 WINSTON CHURCHILL 
 ROSECRANS W. PILLSBURY 
 DANIEL C. REMICH 
 FRANK S. STREETER 
 
 THE LAMB 
 THE WOLF 
 THE HORNET 
 THE SPIDER 
 
 ■ MM