Consolidation. 
369 
the state. That the intersection of the Milwaukee and the 
Chicago roads would still bring trade to Milwaukee because that 
city is so much nearer. In this way the writers of the report 
evidently aim at disarming suspicion, and then gradually shift 
over into a one-sided argument in favor of consolidation. “We 
are free from the fears resulting from a general consolidation ” 
for these reasons: (1) The western shipper will not pay more 
to get to a poorer market (Chicago!) (2) Our roads must be 
united in order to compete successfully for the prize of western 
trade against the Chicago-Galena and the Mississippi River 
route. (3) There is no danger of arbitrary rates, because the 
railroads are subject to the legislature, and the building of 
rival roads. It is the first business axiom to cherish and in¬ 
crease the way business. (4) Sven consolidation with the 
Chicago and Northwestern Railroad could not be detrimental, 
because Wisconsin interests would control the (consolidated) 
company. At present the Northwestern carries freight below 
costs, and grants passes to any one who even makes a pretense 
of doing business in Chicago. It discriminates against Mil¬ 
waukee. (5) The consolidated company would build branch 
roads. (6) At present the C. & N. W. R. R. intersects both of 
our roads [Milwaukee and La Crosse, and Milwaukee and Prairie 
du Chien], and gives to each a certain amount of business as a 
bribe for apart of its through business (to Chicago);— all of these 
points are elaborated. The last point is so unique as to deserve 
being given more in full. After the notorious case of the Cam¬ 
den and Amboy Railroad (N. J.) is disposed of, the committee, 
with an unsophisticated air, continues: “ It is urged that a 
consolidated company would have a great and dangerous politi¬ 
cal power in the state. It is not to be denied that a company 
or an individual possessed of such a property would enjoy a 
considerable influence; but we do not think our experience and 
observation in the past should lead us to fear any overshadow¬ 
ing or disastrous results from such influence. We think it is 
safe to say that generally the influence of capital upon the course 
of legislation in a state is favorable to prudence and caution. 
It is probably safe to say that injustice and improvidence in 
24 
