The Lancaster Farmer. 



Dr. S. S. SATHVON, Editor. 



LANCASTER, PA., MARCH, 1881. 



Vol. XIII. No. 3. 



Editorial. 



THE RAILROADS AND THE PEOPLE " 



Wlifii llie United Stall's Oovuinineiit as- 

 sessed a tax of one liuiidivd pi-r <eiit. on 

 friction matclies— so far as the mere question 

 of revenue was coueeiiied— it was, i)erliai)S, a 

 judicious, as well as a inaetieal measure ; f.ir 

 well it knew tliat the i.eople would not return 

 to the "steel and tlint " ayain, to i)roduce 

 their needed fire : no, not, perhaps, if it liad 

 assessed two hundred, three Imndred, or even 

 five hundred per cent, instead of one. The 

 diseoveiy of tlie friction in a tcli was a progres- 

 sive invention of miivi isal application, com- 

 fort, convenience, and economy ; so mucli so, 

 and so popular withal, that no patent was 

 taken out for it, and if there had been, it 

 probably never would have been respected. 

 Had not the use of stone-coal as a fuel been 

 almost sinuiltatuously discovered, the use of 

 the nia.ch would iiroliably not have been so 

 obvious, so popular, nor so necessitous. Peo- 

 iplc would sutler a t'i"eat de.al of imposition 

 before they would go back to exclusively 

 wooil or charcoal tires, and those who trade in 

 stone-coal knew this quite as well as the gov- 

 ernment knew that the soverned would cheer- 

 fully pay one hundred per cent, on their 

 matches, rather than refuse to consume them. 

 True, the revenue assessed on nr.itcbes was 

 for a patriotic purpose, but the occasion has 

 entirely passed away, and the tax on matclies 

 still remains, perhaps, as an heirloom of the 

 war. Its equity alone sustained it, and still 

 sustains it, but aside from this, it was a 

 monstrous measure to impose one luindred 

 per cent, tax on any article consumed by the 

 people, and especially an article of such prime 

 necessity as matches, the consumption of 

 which never could be classed with dissipa- 

 tions and sensual indulgencies. .Waiving all 

 questions involving the causes, the effects 

 and the ends of domestic measures, can it be 

 right, just, and humane for any governinent, 

 corporation, or company to impose a tariff 

 upon any article of universal consumption, to 

 " f/ie arnoimt it will bear,'''' merely because they 

 have the assumed or implied right to do so? 

 It is true that onerous taxes or duties are 

 sometimes imposed, ostensibly for protection, 

 wlien the true intent and purpose is entire 

 ■prohibition, but this is not the case, with the 

 domestic production and consumption of 

 stone-coal and friction matches. The people, 

 like non-resistant bovines, quietly, but pro- 

 testantly, submit to the one hundred per cent, 

 taxation, solely because of the luxuriant con- 

 venie.nce of matches, as well as in other things ; 

 and therefore the tax is fearlessly continued. 

 Under any tircumstauces, however, a tax of 

 one hundred per cent. <pn matches will never 

 seem exorbiaut, because of its integral insig- 

 nificance, its equitable- assessment, and the 

 essentiality of the product to domestic com- 

 fort and convenience. It is one of those 

 things of such prime importance, that it is 

 seldom viewed in its tinancial aggregations, 

 but only as an isolated and diminutive 

 integer. 



Analogous to tiie foregoing is the pregnant 

 question of ''The Baitroads and the People" — 

 a question that is loomiu,? into prominence 

 all over the country, and a question involv- 

 ing more "crooks and kiiik:s " than, perhaps, 

 any other relating to the riglits, the comforts, 

 and the conveniences of the people ; and 

 these corporations seem to knoic exactly the 

 extent of their powers, and theorize and act 

 upon them accordingly. The people cannot, 

 and will not go back to the old system of 

 transportation and travel, and especially not 

 when they want to make a long and expedi- 

 tious journey or transport heavy and large 



quantities of niercliandize. The stage coach 

 and tile Conesloga Ti.'am of liygone years, 

 could not possibly " till the bill " of commer- 

 cial intercourse and travel, and no persons 

 know this better than railroad companies. 

 Acting upon this knowledge they afl'ord the 

 public the most ample facilities, and the most 

 splendid comforts and conveniences ; and 

 should imposition or extortion follow as a re- 

 sult, the people are bribed into acquiescence 

 by tlie very luxury of their accoininodations. 

 No, the people could not if they would, and 

 would not if they could, eschew the use of 

 railroads, any more than tlley would the use 

 of stone-coal and friction matches, if fares 

 and freights, were a hundred per cent, over 

 the present rates and if the '■^merchandize 

 would bear it.'" The assessments of fares and 

 freights under such a rule seems an unfair 

 one, unless it worked both ways— that is, only 

 what the merchandize will bear, instead of aH 

 it will bear ; for then a farmer in the West 

 might atford to send a whole train of loose; 

 straw to the eastern market. But, from all 

 we can learn and understand of this subject, 

 through, public discussions, investigations, 

 and reports of special committees; what the 

 people are complaining about, is the exorbitant 

 fares and freights, and especially the extraor- 

 dinary and oppre.ssive discriminations against 

 local or way-freights, and in favor of those 

 between very remote points on the roads; 

 and, if the testimony elicited represents the 

 facts of the case, the system is little less than ex- 

 tortionate. Still, short shipments must neces- 

 sarily be higher in proportion to the distance 

 than long ones as a rule, because the labor 

 and expense of shipment and transhipment 

 may be the same, whether the points are one 

 mile apart or a thousand miles ; but the dif- 

 ference shouldnot be exorbitant, or amount tiv 

 a prohibition. A printer might only charge 

 $10.00 for one thousand handbills, but he 

 would by no means print you one hundred for 

 SI. 00, simply because it would cost as much 

 to set up the " form " of the smaller number 

 as it would of the larger, the only difference 

 being in the ink and paper, and a little addi- 

 tional press-work ; still, if he were to charge 

 as much for the one hundred as he does for 

 one thousand his discrimination would sim- 

 ply be extortionate ; and his conduct would 

 be dishonorable, if he made such a charge only 

 because he had the power to make it. • • 



What is a railroad anyhow ; or any other 

 corporation that derives "its powers— yea, its 

 very existence — from the sovereign people, 

 through their representatives in conclave as- 

 sembled ? Is it greater, and independent of 

 the power that created it ? Can a State grant 

 or delegate to a company powers greater than 

 those she her.self possesses? Can a part— 

 under any circumstances — be greater than 

 the whole f Can a State endow a corporation, 

 or a company, with the prerogatives or priv- 

 ileges of royalty ? Common sense, in defer- 

 ence to the principles of Republicanism, would 

 doubtless respond negatively ; and yet, it is 

 alleged that there are railroads in our country 

 that are exercising power's that are interdicted 

 by the fundamental law. The fundamental 

 idea undtrlying all public improvements 

 or ought to "be, that said improvements are to 

 all intents and purposes the servants of the 

 people, and not tneir ma.'<ters — that tlie pco 

 pie, through the legal tribunals which they 

 have created, arc the power to which railroads 

 are amenable. The people, however, cannot 

 exercise their powers arbitrarily in holding 

 corporations to their accountability, except 

 through and by means of the legal powers 

 through which they were created. The ques- 

 tion of the extent of the ownership of rail- 

 roads involves some abstruse points, which, 

 none but the profound among the legal pro- 



fession can satisfactorily solve, and even 

 these widely differ. It is not so much a ques- 

 tion of ab.solule right, as it is the extent and 

 limit of the right. The State grants a com- 

 pany a charter to construct a railroad between 

 two specific points, when neither the State 

 nor the company owns those points, nor a sin- 

 gle foot of the land that lies between them ; 

 nor can the road be built without compensat- 

 ing tne owner or owners for damages ; but 

 that coniijensation does not constitute the 

 company the unqualified owners of the land 

 occupied by the road. When it vacates or 

 abandons tire road, neither the company nor 

 the Slate are the owners of the territory so 

 vacated or abandoned, but it reverts to the 

 original contiguous domain. This clearly 

 evinces the limit of the ownership. It is the 

 same as in an incorporated town or city, 

 when it vacates or abandons a public street 

 or highway. The town or city does not pos- 

 sess an ownership in the land thus vacated, 

 with the right to build thereon, or to dispose 

 of it by deed to another person, but it, as in 

 the former case, reverts to the original con- 

 tiguous domain, whoever may be the posses- 

 sor of it. Damages to the possessors of prop- 

 erty may be modified in their assessment by 

 the btniefits accruing to other property of the 

 same owner, by reason of such public im- 

 provements, but in no case do those damages 

 constitute a corporation an absolute and per- 

 petual owner, as hi fee simple. The corpora- 

 tion can take away its rails, its ties, its Mac- 

 adamization, or any other moveable eflects it 

 placed on the land occupied by its road, and 

 retain its ownership therein, but it clearly 

 cannot take the land, nor dispose of it by 

 deed to any other person or persons. This 

 being the case, it greatly qualifies the vaunted 

 ownership of railroads. They are merely ■ 

 granted certain limited rights and privileges 

 so long as they occupy and use their original 

 grants for the purposes for which they were 

 granted, and amenable to the power that 

 created them. 



We would not abridge the privileges and 

 the immunities that are, or ought to be, ac- 

 corded to railroads by reason of the responsi- 

 bilities and risks they incur in locating and 

 building their roads. We would even endow 

 them with privileges through which they 

 mi-iht re.alize a larger per cent on their in- 

 vestment, than that yielded by ordinary busi- 

 ness enterprises, for the reasons already 

 briefly intimated, but we would limit them to 

 uniform, legitimate, and equitable means ; 

 and they ought not be allowed to discriminate 

 excessively against poverty and in favor of 

 riches ; or against smaller quantities and in 

 favor of larger ones ; or against shorter dis- 

 tances and in favor of longer ones ; except to 

 the reasonable limit before indicated — indeed, 

 railroads, and other corporations, ought never 

 to know persojis at ail, but be governed entirely 

 by principles. Whether A. travels over their 

 roads once every week, or only once in a life- 

 time they ought never to know, in the applica- 

 tion of their principles. They ought to be 

 equally obliveous whether B. travels over 

 their road one mile or a thousand miles, ex- 

 cept the reasonable commutations in such 

 cases uniformly provided, and recorded in 

 their schedules. As an abstract principle of 

 right, it is questionable whether railroads or 

 other corporations, ought to possess, or exer- 

 cise, any discretionary powers, except in very 

 extraordinary cases, and then they ought to 

 be delinite, equitable, and limited ; having 

 no regard to jiersons whatever, but to 

 principles only. Other than reasonable com- 

 pensations to tlie builders and conductors of 

 such euter|)rises, the public, for whose benefit 

 they are ostensibly constructed, should share 

 in their advantages. The extraordinary ef- 



