2>S5d 
 
 /vyi^s a 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Mr. Speaker :—A hundred years ago, within a year 
 and a few months earlier than this, there was an assem¬ 
 bly in this goodly city of Concord—a remarkable con¬ 
 vention. It was composed of a few more than a hun¬ 
 dred members. They had met after the long revolu¬ 
 tionary struggle, after the period of discontent and 
 demoralization that followed the revolution—they had 
 met in convention here, in a church in Concord, to de¬ 
 termine whether they would give their assent to the 
 proposed constitution of the United States. If they 
 should give that assent it would be the ninth state, and 
 it would give that constitution validity, and make the 
 union under that constitution complete. As we look 
 back today upon that gathering, it seems to us incredi¬ 
 ble that these men, gathered under those circumstances, 
 could have hesitated about their duty. And yet, day 
 after day, they engaged in earnest and angry debate ; 
 day after day, they debated whether that great instru¬ 
 ment should become Magna Charta of the young and 
 new republic, a republic upon whose fate hung the 
 millions yet unborn, and whose example was to stand 
 for all time for the oppressed of all nations. And yet 
 they stood there, and they debated whether they would 
 give their sanction as the ninth state to that proposed 
 constitution. After the debate had run several days, 
 there arose an old man in that convention. He had 
 served in the Revolutionary war. lie had done his 
 duty patriotically, bravely and faithfully. He repre¬ 
 sented a town of this very county. He stood up there 
 and he said :—“ Washington, I have followed for seven 
 
 WAY ECp.MO^CS, 
 
 
 apr u m 
 
4 
 
 years, and I do not fear to follow him now. He has 
 signed this constitution; he has commended it. to us; 
 and I am not afraid to follow his example when I have 
 followed it for seven years through the Revolutionary 
 war. This constitution is proposed for the welfare of 
 this nation ; it is proposed to unite what is now disunit¬ 
 ed ; it is for the general welfare, leaving the people of 
 the state complete masters of their domestic affairs.” 
 Who was that old man who thus spoke briefly, but so 
 pointedly and eloquently? He was the father of Daniel 
 Webster. 
 
 Gentlemen, from that day to this, in my judgment, 
 never has a question been presented to the representa¬ 
 tives of the people of New Hampshire of more gravity 
 than the one that concerns us todav. That was at the 
 birth of the nation. That was at the dawn. Today 
 the sun has risen ; it has passed the zenith, we hope 
 long to shine there and not [descend. But, gentlemen, 
 we do not know how soon the sun may begin to descend. 
 Some seeds have been sown among the people of this 
 country that may yet spring up and/‘cause dissolu¬ 
 tion. But, so far as we can see, the republic has many 
 years before it; the states have many years before them. 
 But, if the republic is to endure, if the states are to 
 stand, it must be through the integrity of the people and 
 of their representatives; it must be through their patri¬ 
 otism and their courage when they are called to meet 
 the exigencies that shall confront them. 
 
 We have one of those exigencies confronting us to¬ 
 day. I feel myself, although I have served seven 
 years in both branches of the legislature of New Hamp¬ 
 shire, that I have never [stood before a^ question that 
 goes so deep into the affairs of the state, that touches so 
 closely the individuality of the people of New Hamp¬ 
 shire. 
 
0 
 
 Now, gentlemen, before I proceed to state the reasons 
 which impel me to vote for the indefinite postponement 
 of the pending bill, I desire briefly to advert to some 
 suggestions that have been offered by the several gen¬ 
 tlemen who have defended that bill upon this floor. 
 And I shall not say, as the gentleman from Claremont 
 said, that no gentleman opposed to me has presented 
 any argument here with any solid foundation. I thought 
 it was rather an unkind remark; because I recognize 
 upon this floor, one who has spoken in opposition to 
 the Hazen bill, who, I think, is not only the peer ot the 
 gentleman from Claremont, but the peer of any man in 
 the state of New Hampshire. (Applause). Years, 
 long years ago, Gen. Sullivan, in the legislature of New 
 Hampshire, at the sunset of his life, made a speech for 
 Dartmouth college. It was the last speech that he made ; 
 and he stood upon the floor of this old state house, and he 
 pleaded for that institutution. I do not know, and you do 
 not know, that the speech that was made here yesterday 
 by the gentleman from Exeter, may not be, after all, the 
 last speech that he will ever deliver to the legislature, or 
 to the people of New Hampshire. I trust that it will 
 not be so, and that we shall hear his voice in this hall 
 for many years to come. But, if such should be the 
 case, gentlemen, I know that that speech, coming as it 
 did from his broad and logical mind, and from his true 
 and great heart, will stand beside the speech made by 
 Gen. Sullivan for his old college of Dartmouth. [Ap¬ 
 plause.] 
 
 The gentleman from Claremont has done me great 
 honor upon this floor. I Ie has read many extracts at length 
 from the newspaper which I happen to publish, and 
 have for many years. I do not know where he obtained 
 his clippings, and it is not material. If he had asked 
 me for the privilege of examining my files for the year 
 
6 
 
 1883, that he might ascertain the views which I then 
 addressed to my readers upon the pending railroad 
 questions, I should cheerfully have given him the privi¬ 
 lege. But some one, I do not know who, has gathered 
 for him extracts from my newspaper, taken from their 
 editorial and proper connections, and he has presented j 
 them here at great length, for the purpose of impressing 
 this house that the position which I occupy today is en¬ 
 tirely different from the position which I occupied in 
 1883. 
 
 Well, if my position is different it would not trouble 
 . me much unless the difference was one that involved a 
 fundamental principle. Four years is something of a 
 span in human life. And if anyone has that principle 
 within him which broadens him out, he will change and 
 enlarge his views somewhat in four years. So I should 
 not care if it were true, today, that I had somewhat 
 changed and enlarged my views within four years. But, 
 gentlemen, I stand today by every word I uttered in 
 1883. I stand today by the record, and I challenge the 
 gentleman from Claremont, and I challenge any gentle¬ 
 man on this floor to point out to me one single idea, or 
 one single reason, embodied in the articles that have 
 been read here from my newspaper in 1883, that con¬ 
 victs me of inconsistency in anything that I have uttered' 
 here or anything that I shall utter here. 
 
 Since the gentleman has adverted to that period, I 
 desire, also, at the outset to advert to it a little. In 
 February, 1883,1 took dinner with the New Hampshire 
 club, at Young’s hotel in Boston. There chanced to sit 
 beside me at the table a gentleman who has now be¬ 
 come well known in New Hampshire and in New Eng¬ 
 land—if he was not well known then. That gentleman 
 was Mr. James T. Furber, the general manager of the- 
 Boston and Maine Railroad. I had not then the 
 
7 
 
 honor of his acquaintance, but it was made, as much as 
 it could be under the circumstances, during the dinner. 
 In the course of our conversation he informed me that it 
 was the purpose of the railroads to present at the next 
 session of the legislature of. New Hampshire, a bill for 
 general consolidation. During the conversation, Mr. 
 Furber asked me what I thought would be the prospect 
 for his obtaining such general legislation. After a 
 moment’s pause, I said that I did not think the legisla¬ 
 ture of New Hampshire would grant such legislation, 
 unless it was accompanied by a railroad commissioners’ 
 act—like that of the state of Massachusetts. Later that 
 afternoon, Mr. Furber, being called to make some re¬ 
 marks, took up the railroad question; and he frankly 
 and squarely advocated the establishment of a railroad 
 commission in the state of New Hampshire—such as 
 they had in Massachusetts. I think, so far as I know, 
 that was the beginning of the consideration of a railroad 
 commissioners’ bill in connection with the general rail¬ 
 road legislation of 1883. The suggestions that Mr. 
 Furber made to me weighed somewhat upon my mind. 
 I soon saw that the railroads proposed to obtain from 
 the legislature of New Hampshire the general consoli¬ 
 dation that they sought; and I then made up my mind 
 that, so far as my duties as a newspaper man in New 
 Hampshire were concerned, so far as my duties as a cit¬ 
 izen of the state were concerned, I never would consent 
 to general railroad consolidation unless it should be ac¬ 
 companied by a strong railroad commissioners’ bill. 
 Now, gentlemen, having the knowledge of these facts 
 before you, perhaps you can better understand the ex¬ 
 tracts that have been presented here in yonr hearing. 
 From the beginning to the close of that controversy, I 
 never abated in the least my advocacy of a railroad 
 commission as the essential accompaniment of a gener- 
 
 % 
 
8 
 
 al railroad law in this state. Search the files of my 
 paper from beginning to end and you will find that to 
 have been the dominating and predominating idea. I 
 do not say today that I was right in that. I do not 
 know that I was wrong. But I do know that insisting 
 that a railroad commissioners' bill should accompany the 
 general legislation—I do not know, today, that I was 
 right rn that. 
 
 In furtherance of my views I came to this legislature, 
 at my own expense, and addressed the railroad commit¬ 
 tee upon the railroad commissioners’ bill. The argu¬ 
 ment which I made at that time was the only one pre¬ 
 sented to the railroad committee during the entire 
 session upon that bill. And I will state here—although 
 it may be a little immodest I think I am justified in 
 saying it—I will state here that in my argument I 
 insisted that the railroad commissioners of New Hamp¬ 
 shire should have the power to fix the maximum of fares 
 and freights. I knew that no such power was lodged in 
 the commissioners of any eastern state; but I had be¬ 
 come convinced from my investigation and study of the 
 question that such power should be given them. The 
 chairman of that committee came to me the next morn¬ 
 ing after my argument, and not only commended what 
 I said, but he told me the committee had voted unani¬ 
 mously for an amendment giving the railroad commis¬ 
 sioners the power to fix maximum fares and freights. 
 And that power, gentlemen, is the power our railroad 
 commission has today. 
 
 This is about all I have to say in regard to the ques¬ 
 tion of consistency. If I have not satisfied every gen- 
 lemen who hears me that the position which I took then 
 had not any selfish purpose, that it had not in view 
 anything detrimental to the public, then nothing that I 
 can further say will convince him. 
 
 9 
 
9 
 
 I shall not at this late hour travel the ground that has 
 been so thoroughly traversed on both sides in regard to 
 the intent of the legislation of 1883. The question has 
 been debated pro and con very thoroughly, and every 
 possible argument, and every possible authority has 
 been stated on one side or the other. I shall leave the 
 question just where the gentleman from Claremont left 
 it yesterday, when he said to this house that he thought 
 it was the intent of the legislation of 1883 to unite the 
 Concord road and these upper roads. That was the ex¬ 
 press and exact language from the gentleman from 
 Claremont, uttered upon this floor yeoterday; and with 
 that authority I leave this branch of the subject. I have 
 no doubt that it was intended, whatever may have been 
 the letter of the legislation of 1883, that the Concord 
 road and these upper roads should be united. Nor 
 have I any doubt either that the negotiations that were 
 pending for the union of those roads were interrupted, 
 as I said in my opening speech, by duplicity and subter¬ 
 fuge. Who was the man that represented the Northern 
 Railroad? Who was then president of the Northern 
 Railroad? And who negotiated with the managers of 
 the Boston and Lowell for the lease of that road for 
 ninety-nine years? That man was Mr. Sherburne. And 
 it certainly w r as a remarkable piece of evidence pre¬ 
 sented before the railroad committee by Mr. Mellen, 
 the general superintendent of the Boston and Low r ell, 
 when he intimated to that committee that there was 
 something in the interview which he had with Mr. Sher¬ 
 burne with reference to this subject that he did not care 
 to make public. The counsel did not press him, and 
 there it w r as dropped. What are we left to infer? 
 There is only one legitimate inference that can be 
 drawn from such a confession as that; and that infer¬ 
 ence is that there w r as something improper in that con- 
 
10 
 
 ference, which led to negotiations, and which the 
 gentleman did not wish to make public to the railroad 
 committee or to the legislature of New Hampshire. We 
 may well conceive there may have been something of 
 that kind when we consider what has been the history 
 of that railroad president and of the Northern Railroad 
 from that day to this. He is today, a fugitive in Europe 
 —a fugitive from justice and from the law of the state of 
 New Hampshire ; and no summons from this state, no 
 intercession of his friends or foes have been able to in¬ 
 duce him to return. Why? Because, gentlemen, in the 
 sale of the Sullivan Railroad by the Northern Railroad 
 to the Connecticut River Railroad there was one hun¬ 
 dred thousand dollars missing. I discovered in my in¬ 
 vestigations as chairman of the railroad commission of 
 the state of New Hampshire that the Sullivan Railroad 
 was sold for eight hundred thousand dollars and that 
 the Northern Railroad received only seven hundred 
 thousand dollars. Where is the other one hundred 
 thousand dollars? Who has it? Is there any doubt 
 in the minds of any gentleman here that this fugitive in 
 Europe shared a part if he did not take the whole of 
 that hundred thousand dollars? And he is the man who 
 made thnse negotiations which cheated the Concord 
 Railroad out of the benefits of the legislation of 1883. 
 That, gentlemen, is the source of the controversy in 
 which we are engaged. 
 
 . I was sorry that the gentleman from Claremont saw 
 fit to advert to the Cheshire lease. Possibly I misun¬ 
 derstood him; possibly he did not intend to intimate 
 that there was anything wrong in the support that cer¬ 
 tain gentlemen gave to the Cheshire Railroad consolida- 
 tion bill. I hope that I am mistaken ; I hope that I 
 misunderstood him, or that he did not make himself 
 clear. But since he referred to that subject, it is proper 
 
II 
 
 that I als© should refer to it and relate to this house a 
 little history. 
 
 There came to this legislature early in the session a 
 plucky little lawyer from Cheshire County, who asked 
 for the -passage of the Cheshire bill. He is a bright 
 lawyer, too, and a persistent one. He appeared alone 
 before that committee and he asked that committee to ap¬ 
 prove a bill—which proposed to do what? It proposed to 
 increase the capital of the Cheshire Railroad by one mil¬ 
 lion dollars. To do what? To lay new side-tracks, to 
 build branches and extensions, and to buy new equip¬ 
 ment—to increase the capital of the old Cheshire road 
 one million dollars to do those things. It immediately 
 occurred to me that it was something new in the rail¬ 
 road policy of the state of New Hampshire to increase 
 the capital stock of railroads to build side - tracks 
 and to buy new equipment. And I made the sug¬ 
 gestion to the gentleman that before he insisted upon 
 incorporating those features in his bill he ought to be 
 
 able to show to the committee that such had been the 
 
 / 
 
 policy of New Hampshire. Well, he could not show 
 it. He investigated, and we looked over together the 
 record of the state, and we did not find a single instance 
 in the whole history of legislation in New Hampshire 
 that she had ever increased the capital stock of a rail¬ 
 road for any such purpose as building side-tracks and 
 furnishing new equipment. It was then suggested to 
 the gentleman that he should eliminate those features 
 from his bill before it could be approved by the com¬ 
 mittee ; and I am glad to say that upon that point the 
 committee were unanimous ; and I want the gentlemen 
 here to remember it, because in something later that I 
 shall say it will have a very important bearing. Those 
 features were eliminated. Then there was just one 
 feature left that I could not approve—that was the 99- 
 
12 
 
 year lease feature. But at that early day the subject 
 lay so undefined before this legislature that I did not 
 feel like jeopardizing the bill, after the eliminations had 
 been made, by openly opposing that feature ; but. I did 
 not vote for the bill in the committee, and I did not 
 vote for it in the house. So much for the suggestion of 
 the gentleman from Claremont that there was some¬ 
 thing peculiar about that Cheshire railroad bill and its 
 introduction and passage here—and there was, in the 
 respects which I have narrated to you, and which I wish 
 you to remember, for something later that will come. 
 
 The gentleman from Claremont in the most passion¬ 
 ate utterance that he made to the house declared in sub¬ 
 stance that he would lose his right arm before he would 
 vote for the Atherton bill which gave to the new cor¬ 
 poration two millions of surplus of the Concord Rail¬ 
 road. Throughout this debate from beginning to end 
 on the other side the argument has been that there is a 
 definite, tangible and considerable surplus in the Con¬ 
 cord Railroad, that, if it should be united with the Bos¬ 
 ton, Concord and Montreal, would be lost to the state 
 treasury of New Hampshire. Now, if that is so it is an 
 important fact for us to know and consider. If it is not 
 so it ought not to weigh anything with us in considering 
 the merits or demerits of these bills. Now, is there any¬ 
 thing to that suggestion ? The provision in the Con¬ 
 cord Railroad charter in regard to the reserved right of 
 the state to take that road on making up the back divi¬ 
 dend is precisely the same as has been stated upon this 
 floor, and as is to be found today in the charter of the 
 Boston and Maine Railroad and the charter of the Man¬ 
 chester and Lawrence Railroad. 
 
 If the Concord Railroad has any surplus that belongs 
 to the state of New Hampshire, by the same reasoning 
 the Boston and Maine has a surplus that belongs to 
 the state. 
 
*3 
 
 The surplus of the Concord Railroad today, by the 
 last report, is only two hundred and fifty thousand 
 dollars; the surplus of the Boston and Maine, cov¬ 
 ering precisely the same things, is one million eight 
 hundred thousand dollars. Now, if there is anv sur- 
 plus in the treasuries of these railroads that really 
 belongs to the state I hope the suggestion of the gen¬ 
 tleman from Claremont that a commission be appointed 
 by the legislature to hunt it up will be carried out. And 
 let us make it sweeping; let us not subject the Concord 
 Railroad alone to this investigation, but let us extend it 
 to the Boston and Maine as well. [Applause.] 
 
 But, gentlemen, I think we can discover without wait¬ 
 ing for an investigating committee or any commission, 
 whether there is really any surplus in these railroads. 
 I do not share the opinion which has been expressed 
 here by some legal gentlemen. Of course I do not in¬ 
 timate that my legal opinion is of any account as com¬ 
 pared with theirs. But I do not believe that, if the state 
 should take the Concord road or the Boston and Maine, 
 that the state would have to pay more than the back 
 dividends without interest. I can see very clearly, how- 
 ever, that that would be a question for litigation between 
 those corporations and the state. It would have to be 
 settled, and it might take a long time to settle it; and 
 the courts of last resort might say that interest should 
 be allowed those corporations—although I do not think 
 so. Col. George, in his argument before the committee 
 in 1883, took the express and distinct ground that these 
 corporations were not entitled to any interest on the 
 back dividends. Assuming, for argument, that this is the 
 case, then the state would have to pay the Concord 
 road something like six hundred and fifty thousand dol¬ 
 lars, in order to obtain the property at $1,500,000. 
 There is no question but the state in doing that, if it 
 
T 4 
 
 could confine itself right there, would make a million or 
 two million dollars by the operation. In my opinion, 
 there is no question about that whatever. But, gentle¬ 
 men, it never will be done, it never will be done. 
 Why? Because there is a better thing to do ; and I shall 
 endeavor to show, before I get through, there is a better 
 thing to do—a thing that will avoid litigation, and will 
 bring to the people of the entire state of New Hampshire 
 all the benefits that could possibly accrue from the state 
 taking these roads. 
 
 The surplus of the Concord Railroad is not in cash ; 
 that is a delusion ; there is no surplus of the Concord 
 Railroad in cash—or but a very few dollars. The sur¬ 
 plus of the Concord Railroad that we speak of, consists 
 in this property, this fine station down here, costing two 
 hundred thousand dollars, that is an honor to the Con¬ 
 cord road, and a source of pride to the entire people of 
 the state of New Hampshire ; the surplus of the Con¬ 
 cord road consists in the new brick station at Nashua, 
 an elegant station for that city; the surplus of the Con¬ 
 cord road consists in the wharf at Portsmouth, and the 
 large outlay that has been made upon it; the surplus of 
 the Concord road consists in the Nashua, Acton and 
 Boston Railroad, purchased for two hundred and fifty 
 thousand dollars; the surplus of the Concord Railroad 
 is the North Weare road, purchased at two hundred 
 thousand dollars ; the surplus of the Concord road is in 
 some sixty or eighty thousand dollars of the stock of 
 the Suncook Valley branch, put in there to build that 
 railroad, while the Boston and Maine never has helped 
 build a single mile in the state of New Hampshire. 
 [Applause.] This is the surplus of the Concord Rail¬ 
 road. 
 
 When the gentleman from Claremont talks to this 
 house about taking two millions of that surplus and dis- 
 
i5 
 
 tributing it among the stockholders of the Boston, Con¬ 
 cord and Montreal, he talks to you the veriest fiction. 
 The property of the Concord Railroad, valued, as I 
 Believe it is, above its cost, at between three and four 
 million dollars, has been the accretion of forty years of 
 honest, economical and faithful management on the part 
 of that road. It has not been squandered ; it has not 
 gone into the pockets of its directors, or managers, or 
 stockholders, beyond the limit fixed at ten per cent, by 
 law ; but its surplus has gone into improvements, until 
 the Concord Railroad, today, is the finest piece of rail¬ 
 road property of its extent, in the United States of 
 America. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I shall refer with entire respect, but 
 with some plainness to the remarks made on this floor 
 yesterday by the gentleman from Exeter, my friend, 
 Mr. Bell. And I wish to say at the outset that any¬ 
 thing that I shall say here with reference to any gentle¬ 
 man, a member of this house, though it may seem that 
 there is some tinge of bitterness, there will be none what¬ 
 ever in my heart. 
 
 I was mystified—I think that is the proper word—I 
 was mystified by the argument which the gentleman 
 from Exeter presented yesterday. I do not know that 
 the house was mystified, but I certainly was. Because 
 that gentleman started out with these propositions—that 
 he had great fear of the political power of railroads ; he 
 had great fear of the Canadian Pacific Railroad; and he 
 had geat fear of the Canadian Pacific obtaining control 
 of the railroads of New Hampshire ; and he asked that 
 the people of New Hampshire should rouse themselves 
 in order to prevent this possibility. Well, gentlemen, I 
 share perhaps to some extent in the fears of corporate 
 power. I think there are facts that warrant us in sharing 
 to some extent that fear. There may be facts that war- 
 
16 
 
 rant us in sharing the gentleman's fear of the Canadian 
 Pacific Railroad ; but I say to you, gentlemen, here, this, 
 day, that I do not stand in one-tenth as much fear of the 
 Canadian Pacific Railroad as I do in fear of some do¬ 
 mestic corporation with its headquarters in the city of 
 Boston, its soul in the city of Portsmouth, and which 
 seeks to obtain entire control of the railroads of New 
 Hampshire. [Applause.] 
 
 The Canadian Pacific, while it may at some time 
 propose to obtain an entrance directly into the city of 
 Boston, must do it, if it comes through New Hampshire 
 subject to the laws of New Hampshire, precisely as the 
 Grand Trunk Railway, that crosses the northern part of 
 this state, is today and always has been and always 
 must be subject to the control of New Hampshire. And 
 with the natural feeling that exists among the people— 
 that natural and patriotic jealousy of a corporation which 
 exists outside of the United States — I think public 
 opinion will always be sufficient to keep that corporation 
 under a check. But when you come to a domestic cor¬ 
 poration, that is at home, upon your very hearth, that 
 can go out among the people and affect all their politi¬ 
 cal and business interests, and penetrate and permeate 
 all the departments of state, then it becomes a very 
 different thing. The evidence cited yesterday by the 
 gentleman from Exeter of the experience of California,. 
 New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and other states, 
 is a complete proof that the real fear that should ani¬ 
 mate the people of this country is not from corporations 
 foreign to the United States, but corporations that are 
 domestic and are able to influence and control domestic 
 affairs within the state. 
 
 And right here let me say that I am glad that the 
 Canadian Pacific is built—I am glad that it today consti¬ 
 tutes a competitive power against the transcontinental 
 
1 7 
 
 railroads of the Lnited States. It is to furnish an outlet 
 for the manufactures of New England, to the Pacific 
 coast, and to China : and it is to bring the products of 
 the West to us. In the evidence submitted here, it was 
 shown that during this session of the legislature, four¬ 
 teen carloads of cotton fabrics from my own city 
 were sent over the Concord Railroad, over these upper 
 roads, over the Canadian Pacific, and have already gone 
 across the Pacific and are in use today in China. Why 
 were they thus sent? Because the rates by the Can¬ 
 adian Pacific were lower than the rates by the Suez 
 canal. That is the reason why the manufacturers of 
 Nashua and Lowell send their products by the Cana¬ 
 dian Pacific. The gentleman from Claremont would 
 wipe out all competition. I suggest to him that he 
 commence with the Canadian Pacific. (Applause.) 
 
 The gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Bell, said that the 
 policy of New Hampshire previous to 1883 had been to 
 make short lines, and that the law of 1883 revolutionized 
 the policy of New Hampshire. That is partly true and 
 partly not true. So far as leasing railroads is concerned, 
 the policy of New Hampshire for forty years has been 
 to lease. For forty years, almost from the very incep¬ 
 tion of the railroads of New Hampshire, it became 
 clear and inevitable that the short lines must become 
 connected and put under one management. 
 
 Why, the Eastern Railroad in New Hampshire was 
 leased forty years ago to the Eastern Railroad in Massa¬ 
 chusetts. The Portsmouth road has been leased to frie 
 Concord road more than a score of years. The Atlan¬ 
 tic and St. Lawrence, that passes through the northern 
 part of the state, has been leased to the Grand Trunk 
 for many years. For forty years we have been leasing 
 railroads. This is no new thing. What is there new 
 about it? I will tell you just what there is and all there 
 
i8 
 
 is. The leasing was done by special act of the legislature 
 up to 1883. By the law of 1883, the roads were 
 given the power to lease without coming to the legisla¬ 
 ture. This law did not change the principle ; it only 
 changed the method. It had been found that the con¬ 
 tests in the legislature here had been attended with 
 great expense, not only to the railroads, but to the state, 
 in the length of the sessions of the legislature. That 
 was one of the reasons why I supported the legislation 
 of 1883. I thought, out of that legislation, we could 
 avoid the contests that attended special legislation, but 
 we have not succeeded ; and we have had at this general 
 session, the longest and costliest, the most deplorable 
 contest that New Hampshire, or, I believe, any other 
 state in this country has witnessed. There is no time, 
 and it will not be profitable, to attempt to ascertain the 
 cause. The ostensible reason lies in the fact that the 
 legislation of 1883 was turned from its proper course— 
 that a corporation, the Boston and Lowell, outside of 
 the state, leaped over the Concord Railroad and got 
 posession of these upper roads under a law that has 
 since been declared by the supreme court to be uncon¬ 
 stitutional. And that, gentlemen, leaves upon this leg¬ 
 islature the onus, the duty, the unavoidable task of 
 either perfecting that legislation, or of devising some 
 other legislation, so that this contest and the others that 
 have preceeded it shall not be repeated. 
 
 Now, the gentleman from Exeter, notwithstanding 
 all his fears of corporate power, notwithstanding all his 
 fears of the Canadian Pacific, notwithstanding all the 
 arguments that he urged here against their being per¬ 
 mitted to obtain control of our railroads, announced 
 at the conclusion that he should support the Hazen 
 billt The one reason that he urged with great force 
 and more elaboration than it has been urged by any- 
 
19 
 
 4 
 
 body else, was that there are certain sections, the 8th, 
 9th and io in that bill, that would give the Manchester 
 and Lawrence Railroad the free run of fourteen miles of 
 siding in the city of Manchester. I must say that I was 
 astonished that a gentleman of the legal acumen 
 and general culture and general information of the 
 gentleman from Exeter could stand up here and defend 
 those sections. I say that I was astonished ; because, 
 gentlemen, if there is one thing in this Hazen bill, that 
 ought to receive your unqualified condemnation it con¬ 
 sists in those three provisions that were injected into 
 that bill while it was in the committee. Why ? 
 Because under a general law they seek to accomplish 
 by indirection the utter ruin of the Concord Railroad 
 and the utter destruction of the great good that can 
 come to the state of New Hampshire by keeping that 
 railroad intact and accomplishing what it has pledged 
 itself to this legislature to carry out. I say that under 
 those three provisions the Concord Railroad, as a dis¬ 
 tinct and vital organization in the state of New Hamp¬ 
 shire, cannot stand two years. Why do I say it? 
 Let me explain. Those fourteen miles of siding in the 
 city of Manchester penetrate all all the factory yards in 
 that city. They have been built there bv the Concord 
 Railroad, and the manufacturing business of that city 
 has been built up by the side of those tracks. The 
 life blood of the Concord Railroad comes from the city 
 of Manchester. Take that away and the Concord Rail¬ 
 road from year to year will have no surplus—I doubt 
 even if it could pay ten per cent, to its stockholders. 
 Now, what lies behind this? Who is the treasurer of 
 the Amoskeag corporation, the greatest cotton manu¬ 
 facturing corporation in the world? Mr. Cooledge, 
 one of the directors in the Boston and Lowell Railroad, 
 a gentleman who, the instant the lease of the Boston and 
 
20 
 
 Lowell was made to the Boston and Maine, cleared one 
 hundred and fifty thousand dollars in cash by that lease 
 in the appreciation of the large block of stock that he 
 held. That lease to the Boston and Maine obilges 
 the Boston and Lowell and its officers to help maintain 
 that lease in order that the Boston and Maine may be 
 able to pay the seven and eight per cent, pledged to 
 the Boston and Lowell Railroad by contract. Mr. 
 Cooledge is the treasurer of the Amoskeag corporation,, 
 and he is also, I believe, the treasurer or a director in 
 nearly all the other corporations in the city of Manches¬ 
 ter. If these provisions can be incorporated here 
 and become the law of the state the Boston and Maine 
 Railroad will run its own freight cars, drawn by its own 
 locomotives, up to every cotton factory in the city of 
 Manchester, and the Concord Railroad is disemboweled. 
 That is what it means. What is the motive behind 
 this? I have been reliably informed that when the first 
 lease of the Boston and Lowell to the Boston and Maine 
 was drawn it was not intended that these upper roads 
 should go, but that they should be left to the Concord 
 Railroad. But the Boston and Lowell, at the head of 
 which is Mr. Cooledge, with his immense wealth of 
 twenty millions, insisted that they should go, and go- 
 they did. And he insists that these amendments shall 
 go into this bill in order that the Concord Railroad can. 
 be emasculated and compelled to go into this combina¬ 
 tion within two years. And what have they done in or¬ 
 der to bring this about? They have put a provision 
 into that law that cannot be found in any other state in 
 this country. 
 
 Is that not an extraordinary proceeding? I would 
 like to have the gentleman from Claremont get up. 
 
 before this house and furnish some reason why there 
 
 > 
 
 should be incorporated into this bill a provision that 
 
21 
 
 cannot be found in the railroad statute law of any 
 other state in this country—that up to this time has 
 been sedulously excluded because of the rights that 
 it would destroy, because of the dangers that would be 
 incurred. There is not a statute law in any of the 
 United States, so far as I know, that allows another rail¬ 
 road to run its own locomotives over another railroad— 
 not one that I know of, unless it be in some special, un¬ 
 important and isolated case. Why, in my opening re¬ 
 marks I read to you the opinion of the commissioners 
 of Massachusetts, the ablest, most eminent and most au¬ 
 thoritative railroad commission in America, and they 
 pointed out to you the wrong to rights of property 
 that such a thing would inflict, and the dangers that 
 it would bring with it to the traveling public. And 
 yet these gentlemen have cunningly engrafted upon 
 this bill this provision which will destroy the Concord 
 Railroad within two years. Why, the last words of the 
 gentleman from Claremont were a charge to remember 
 the surplus of the Concord road. And by this legisla¬ 
 tion they propose not only to destroy the surplus but 
 but the Concord road itself. I say to you, gentlemen, 
 before you vote for this bill remember not only the surplus 
 of the Concord Railroad, but remember the vested rights 
 of the Concord road, its stockholders and the people of 
 New Hampshire, and remember the right to protection 
 of life and limb that belongs to the traveling public. 
 [Applause.] 
 
 The gentleman from Exeter told us something about 
 the bonds—“ the bonds ! the bonds ! ” And I thought of 
 the play where the ghost comes in—“ the ghost! the 
 ghost!” “The bonds! the bonds!” What are these 
 bonds, and what are these pledges that the Concord 
 Railroad has put into its bill? The Concord Railroad 
 comes here for certain legislation—affecting what? 
 
22 
 
 These two upper roads—these two upper roads alone. 
 What does the Concord Railroad say to the people up¬ 
 on the line of these two upper roads? It says to the 
 people in this bill here, give us the control of these and 
 we will pay the Northern more interest than the Bos¬ 
 ton and Lowell is paying; we will join the Boston, 
 Concord and Montreal to ourselves upon an equal foot¬ 
 ing ; we will share its burdens and it shall share our ad¬ 
 vantages ; and in addition to that we pledge ourselves 
 , to make certain extensions, long desired by the people 
 of the upper part of the state of New Hampshire, abso¬ 
 lutely essential to its complete development. Now, the 
 gentleman from Exeter tells you that there is something 
 like bribery in that, and he says that, because the 
 Atherton bill contains those provisions, it “ bristles all 
 over with bribery—bristles all over with bribery ! ” 
 Is that so? Is,it a misapprehension on his part? 
 Is it an extravagance? Is it a fiction, or what is it? I 
 said the gentleman mystified me—and he mystified me 
 a great deal upon that point. If that is bribery, then 
 ever}" act or charter which is sought for the benefit of 
 any town in this state, and is supported by its represen¬ 
 tatives, is an act of bribery. For fifty years the people 
 of this state have come here for charters for railroads, 
 and they have been supported by the representatives 
 of their section ; and they have been supported on the 
 ground that these railroads were local; that they were 
 essential; and that the people had the right to support 
 them and to pledge 'their representatives to support 
 them, and to elect representatives only who would sup¬ 
 port them. This has been the history of the state for 
 forty years ; and whoever before thought it was bribery ? 
 Whv, there is no concealment even about this. There 
 it is in cold print, and every man can read it for him¬ 
 self. Bribery comes by stealth; it takes a man una- 
 
23 
 
 wares ; it appeals to his sordid passions ; it never in¬ 
 vites publicity. But this does invite publicity, and there 
 is not the first taint of bribery about it; but there is an 
 honorable proposition for the development of the state 
 of New Hampshire by the resources of the Concord 
 Railroad. Now, I am for that. I say here deliberately 
 that I am for it; and I am for this bill because it pledges 
 the Concord Railroad; and I believe the Concord Rail¬ 
 road will carry out its pledges. (Applause.) 
 
 Why, gentlemen, why should not this upper country 
 be developed? And who is to develop it unless the 
 Concord Railroad shall? I will show you later, gentle¬ 
 men, beyond peradventure, that unless the Concord 
 Railroad makes this development it will not be made 
 for many years to come. Now, I am not in favor of 
 taking the surplus of the Concord Railroad that exisists 
 in depots, wharves, stations, and improvements on its 
 line, and transporting them up to the north country; I 
 am not in favor of that, as some gentlemen would seem 
 to have us believe would be the effect of the Ather¬ 
 ton bill. But after the Concord Railroad has cut 
 down its fares lower than any other railroad in New 
 England, I am in favor, if it has a surplus left of fifty or 
 a hundred thousand dollars, of applying it to the devel¬ 
 opment of this upper country. That is what I am in 
 favor of, and I do not believe it will be developed unless 
 it is developed under the Atherton bill. 
 
 Now, the gentleman from Franklin, Mr. Aiken, the 
 other day, made a speech here that did not mystify 
 me any. I was greatly pleased with it. I was dis¬ 
 appointed at times, and at others very much pleased. 
 When he went on to extol the virtues of the Concord 
 
 road, I almost hoped that he would come out and vote 
 
 * * 
 
 for the Atherton bill; but when he went on and extolled 
 t ie virtues of the Boston and Maine, and said that he 
 
2 4 
 
 \ 
 
 should vote for the Hazen bill, I was a little cast down. 
 But, the gentleman did say one thing here that relieved 
 the situation a good deal, if it did not exactly comport 
 with some other things said upon the same side. He 
 said that it was as sure as fate that the Concord Railroad 
 must become a part of this great through line from the 
 mountains to the sea; and he gave away this whole 
 scheme—that this consolidation must ultimately in¬ 
 clude the Concord Railroad and its “ surplus." Now, 
 the gentleman from Franklin is a frank gentleman; 
 he is an able gentleman; and he has done as much to 
 develop New Hampshire as almost any other man in 
 the state, and I greatly honor him. And I also greatly 
 honor him for his frankness. He is too honest, too 
 frank to stand up here and attempt to disguise this 
 thing, as some of the gentlemen upon this floor have. 
 The gentleman from Hampton Falls, my co-laborer up¬ 
 on the railroad committee, Mr. Brown, said that the 
 Boston and Maine did not propose to intermeddle with 
 the Concord Railroad. Oh, no. His cue was • that. 
 But it was slightly interfered with by the gentleman 
 from Franklin, when he said frankly, honestly and 
 knowingly I have no doubt, that it was proposed, be¬ 
 fore this thing should end, that the Concord Railroad 
 should be included. And if any gentleman here will 
 read the 7th, 8th and 9th sections in that bill, and then 
 say that they do not think it is proposed to include the 
 Concord Railroad, he reads them in a different light 
 from what I can. 
 
 I think I have said all that is necessary and all that 
 my time will allow, in a somewhat random way, in re¬ 
 ply to the gentlemen who have preceeded me. 
 
 I will now state .to you, as deliberately, clearly and 
 honestlv as I can, my reasons whv the Hazen bill should 
 be indefinitely postponed, and why every man in this 
 
25 
 
 house, no matter what his previous predilections, should, 
 in duty to himself, to his state, and to his people, vote 
 for that motion. 
 
 My first reason resolves itself about the control of 
 these upper roads for the next hundred years. My first 
 reason is, that the Concord Railroad by its physical 
 connection with these two upper roads is their natural 
 ally. Look on this map here, which has been recast so 
 as to show the Concord Railroad as if it were in po- 
 session of these two upper roads. You will see there 
 are two systems, leaving out the Cheshire and the Con¬ 
 necticut River system, covering, a large portion of the 
 state, and about equal in extent and importance. They 
 constitute two New Hampshire systems—one, the Bos¬ 
 ton and Maine system, and the other the Concord Rail¬ 
 road system. Now, I say that this is the natural solu¬ 
 tion of this problem. It is what the legislature of 1883 
 intended. It is what the gentlemen from Claremont 
 said yesterday was intended by that legislation ; and it 
 is the natural thing, and is today the thing to do. Be¬ 
 cause it gives this short Concord Railroad, a line of 
 thirty-six miles, a northern extension of 150 miles or 
 more, making a system of a little less than four hun¬ 
 dred miles, and a little more or less than the Boston and 
 Maine mileage in the state. I say, that the first reason 
 why I am in favor of postponing the Hazen bill, is, that 
 it proposes to prevent a natural solution of the rail¬ 
 road problem in the state of New Hampshire ; and 
 instead of giving to these natural allies the opportunity 
 of creating a strong system, it proposes to leap over the 
 Concord Railroad and place those upper roads in the 
 control ot the Boston and Maine, thus give it eight- 
 tenths of the railroads in New Hampshire. I say that 
 thing is unnatural, it is abnormal, and is not the right 
 thing. 
 
2 6 
 
 My second reason for voting to indefinitely postpone 
 the Hazen bill is that the Concord Railroad is peculiar¬ 
 ly situated to carry ont the desired improvements upon 
 these upper roads. I must say that considering all the 
 facts of the case I have been astonished that the repre¬ 
 sentatives upon this floor living upon those lines have 
 not given more weight to this consideration. I do them 
 the justice to say here and now that they desire the thing 
 that is best for their own lines and localities. That is 
 natural to us all. They desire their roads to go where 
 they will be of the most benefit to the people and the 
 business on those lines. Now, which is best situated, 
 the Concord or the Boston and Maine, to carry out 
 what is necessary for the development and operation of 
 those roads? I have called your attention to the natural 
 situation. I call your attention now to their financial 
 condition. The Concord Railroad has no debt. Well, 
 now, that is really a fortunate thing. I am one of those 
 persons who all their lives are in debt. I have not able 
 to get out of debt, and never expect to until the last day 
 comes that lavs mein the o;rave. But here is the Con- 
 cord corporation, a great corporation that is out of debt. 
 It has great resources and it is ready to share those 
 resources with the people of the upper country. Now, 
 that is a great advantage—do not lose sight of it—that 
 the Concord Railroad by its credit, by its resources, by 
 its annual net income, is better prepared than any other 
 railroad in the United States to help you. And yet, 
 you shut your eyes to that fact; you have not given 
 it its due weight in the determination ofthis great 
 question. 
 
 Why, where is the Boston and Maine? It has a loal 
 of debt—more than fifteen million dollar's outside cf its 
 capital stock and the capital stock of its leased lines. A 
 debt of more than fifteen million dollars ! Why, its own 
 
debt is enormous ; and when you come to put it with 
 the debt of the Eastern and the debt of the Boston and 
 Lowell it is more than thirty millions—the debt of those 
 three roads alone, to say nothing of the other roads they 
 have acquired. 
 
 The gentleman from Exeter in his convincing ad¬ 
 dress yesterday anticipated me upon this point; but its 
 weight deserves repetition. The Boston and Maine 
 Railroad with its capital and debt has been shown to 
 you by figures, upon this floor, to stand at a hundred 
 million dollars—one hundred million dollars ; more than 
 fifty millions of clear debt. 
 
 There is one historical fact in this country that is 
 of great significance, and that fact is, that in about once 
 in twenty years we have a financial revulsion in Amer¬ 
 ica ; and that financial revulsion lasts from three to ten 
 years before business and property can recover from it. 
 We had one of those financial revulsions in 1816, 
 another in 1837, and another in 1857, and another in 
 1873 ; and if the historical parallel is followed we shall 
 have another in seven years. Now, when that comes, 
 is there any man here that can tell me that the Boston 
 and Maine, with its fifty millions of debt, can breast the 
 storm? Is there anv man here, who can tell me that the 
 Boston and Maine will not follow the Eastern,' and suc¬ 
 cumb to the storm? Why, the Boston and Maine is 
 expanded six times as much as the Eastern was ex¬ 
 panded when it was submerged. I know it is fair sail¬ 
 ing today ; but, I tell you, gentlemen, the Boston and 
 Maine has entered upon a policy that must, in the 
 nature of things, have to stand a great financial strain 
 within a few years. When that strain comes, the 
 Boston and Maine may not go as low as the Eastern 
 went; but I tell vou that the Boston and Maine’s leased 
 lines will meet the fate that the Nashua and Rochester 
 
t 
 
 28 
 
 met; it will meet the directors some night coming 
 around and asking you to scale down your interest or 
 dividend one-half. And you will do it—you will do it; 
 because, if you do not, bankruptcy and the receiver 
 will follow. That is what took place with us in Nashua, 
 only a few years ago—not when the storm came, but 
 when we were recovering from the storm. And just as 
 certain as fate, if the Boston and Maine continues the 
 policy upon which it has entered, of taking into its em¬ 
 brace all the broken down railroads of New England 
 and sustaining them by large annual interest, it must 
 meet the storm, and meet it soon. Then, what is to 
 become of these two upper roads leased for 99 years? 
 
 Your Eastern Railroad in New Hampshire, which 
 cost only half a million dollars, was leased, for fifty-four 
 years, I believe, to the Eastern Railroad in Massachu¬ 
 setts. The financial storm came, and they scaled 
 down the dividend. That road today is receiving but 
 four and a half per cent., while it is earning upon its 
 cost thirty per cent., certainly, if not more, every year 
 that the road is operated. And yet, by that lease run¬ 
 ning fifty-four years, the owners of that stock can ob¬ 
 tain only four and a half per cent. I tell you these long 
 leases are susceptible of great results—and great disas¬ 
 trous results. 
 
 Never in the history of the Concord Railroad has 
 it been seriously injured by any financial convul¬ 
 sion. Its credit has never been affected ; but it has 
 gone steadily on, doing its appointed work, making im¬ 
 provements on its line. No financial revulsion—and 
 we have had at least three during its history—has ever 
 affected its credit. So, I say to you, gentlemen of the 
 north, upon financial grounds as well as natural grounds, 
 you ought to give your support to the proposition that 
 shall place the control of your roads into the hands of 
 this strong and solvent Concord Railroad. 
 
29 
 
 Now, I want to call your attention to another reason 
 why the Hazen bill should be indefinitely postponed, 
 and the management of these upper roads placed into 
 the control of the Concord Railroad by some legislation 
 we can devise. A few years ago I was riding in the 
 State of Maine with Mr. Blaine, and during our conver¬ 
 sation he spoke to me about the great sea-coast line of 
 that State. He told me that it was three thousand 
 miles in extent, a fact which I did not myself know 
 before, but which I believe is an exact geographical 
 fact,—that it has a sea-coast line, including all its inden¬ 
 tations, of about three thousand miles, making the finest 
 coast in America. Mr. Blaine said Maine is being great¬ 
 ly developed by the summer business, but it is only in 
 its infancy. In a few years, when the great West shall 
 have its fiftv millions, he said the State of Maine and 
 the State of New Hampshire are to reap a harvest from 
 the people of those sections such as they little dream of 
 today. And I believe that Mr. Blaine was right—that 
 we do not realize today the development that is to come 
 to the mountain and lake regions of our State. 
 
 Now, it is proposed that this lake region and moun¬ 
 tain region up here, which cannot be duplicated any¬ 
 where on earth, shall be passed over for ninety-nine 
 years to a corporation that has so little interest in the 
 State of New Hampshire, legally, that when it took its 
 lease of the Eastern road it did not perform its duty 
 under the law of 1883 and file a record of that lease in 
 the office of the secretary of state, although the law ex¬ 
 pressly provides that shall be done. As chairman of 
 the railroad commission of this state, I asked the general 
 manager one day why he did not comply with that law, 
 because I found that no record of the Eastern lease had 
 been made in the office of the secretary of state. His 
 reply was that they did not hold that they were required 
 
30 
 
 under the law of 1883 to file any lease in New Hamp¬ 
 shire. 
 
 I should like to know if the Boston and Maine Rail¬ 
 road and the Eastern Railroad, making their leases, as 
 every one supposed, under the act of 1883, really do 
 not believe today that they came together under that 
 act, or owe any allegiance to the State of New Hamp¬ 
 shire under that act. And yet, gentlemen, I have a 
 letter which I will reed, showing, although their atten¬ 
 tion was long ago called to it, that the lease never has 
 been filed in the State of New Hampshire in accordance 
 with the law. 
 
 State of New Hampshire, 
 Secretary’s Office. >• 
 Concord, Sept. 22, 1887. ) 
 
 This is to certify that no lease of the Eastern Railroad to 
 the Boston and Maine has been presented to be recorded in 
 this office. 
 
 A. B. THOMPSON, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 You will remember that at the beginning of this ses¬ 
 sion I introduced a resolution calling upon the Boston 
 and Maine to furnish a copy of that lease, and it was 
 furnished, and is the only copy that I kriow of that is in 
 our possession here today. I think before I get through 
 I can furnish some facts and circumstances that will 
 furnish reasons why the} r did not want that lease filed 
 here. 
 
 I was speaking of the subject of this upper country 
 when I made this digression. I assume that the devel¬ 
 opment of that country is only in its infancy; I assume 
 further that there is not a like piece of country anywhere 
 on earth like that; and such I believe to be the case. 
 Travellers who have stood upon the Alps, travellers 
 who have skirted the lakes of Scotland, travellers who* 
 
3i 
 
 have stood in the great Yellowstone Park, who have 
 stood under the shade of the magnificent forests of Cal¬ 
 ifornia, travellers who have been in Spain, Switzerland 
 and Italy, returning to America and visiting that region, 
 have all said with one accord that they have never found 
 anywhere a country equal to it in its landscapes, in its 
 mountains and its lakes. This country is to be the 
 Mecca of the summer tourists and travellers for the 
 years to come. Its wealth from that source cannot to- 
 
 v * 
 
 day be estimated; it is untold, and it will last for years 
 and years to come. And the railroad that is to have 
 the control of the avenues to that region is to have a 
 source of income of immense value to it. The Hazen 
 bill proposes to put the Boston and Maine in control, 
 and it proposes to do it, too, under a lease for ninety- 
 nine years at five per cent. And in all these coming 
 years, when the tide of summer travel throngs there, 
 when the revenue flows in a steadv stream from that 
 source to the Boston and Maine, the benefit is not to 
 come back to you, but it is to remain in the coffers of 
 the Boston and Maine. 
 
 And that brings me to what is the most startling, the 
 most important, the most vital thing in this whole con¬ 
 troversy; and I ask your indulgence if I am a little 
 tedious while I call your attention in detail to it. The 
 lease of the Eastern road to the Boston and Maine is 
 the most remarkable one that I ever heard of in this 
 country or about which I ever read. There is nothing 
 like it in the history of New England. I have examined 
 a great many of the leases in Massachusetts and I found 
 none there like it. This lease was made December 2, 
 1884; and it was made with a great many terms, con¬ 
 ditions, items, covenants and agreements. But the 
 things to which I wish to call your attention may be 
 briefly summarized. I have had printed and laid upon 
 
32 
 
 your desks the lease of the Eastern Railroad to the 
 Boston and Maine ; and while I am upon this branch 
 of my argument, I will ask you to follow me in my 
 comments upon that lease, because you will discover 
 there some things that I think will astonish you. I 
 think the gentlemen living upon these northern lines, 
 will discover there something that will astonish them. 
 This is serious business, gentlemen. We stand here on 
 the very edge of approving or disapproving a measure 
 that involves the future of that great region for ninety- 
 nine years. 
 
 Turn, if you please, towards the bottom of the first 
 item, where it reads, “The railroads and properties 
 herebv demised and those of the lessee shall be used, man- 
 aged and operated by the lessee in a proper, ordinary, 
 and judicious manner, according to the best discretion 
 and judgment of its managers, so as to secure the largest 
 amount of earnings from each which can be realized 
 therefrom , with due regard to the service to be rendered 
 to the public, and to the preservation of said roads and 
 properties in good order and condition for rendering 
 such service efficiently and economically.” 
 
 I call your attention to the language, which is cer¬ 
 tainly very remarkable and singular—“ so as to secure 
 the largest amount of earnings from each which can be 
 
 realized.” The prominent idea, and subsequent facts 
 will show why it was put in there ; and the only idea, 
 really, is, that “ the largest amount of earnings shall be 
 realized from that lease.” 
 
 Now, turn to the first item, where it provides that 
 (“The lessee shall pay the operating expenses of both 
 the lessor and lessee. Such operating expenses shall 
 include, as part thereof, the cost of ordinary repairs and 
 renewals ; all expenditures arising out of any contract, 
 obligation, business, negligence or misfeasance, or how- 
 
33 
 
 
 ever otherwise arising, in any way, connected with the 
 use and operation of the railroads and properties of the 
 parties hereto, and including damages to persons and 
 property; insurance; all taxs of every description, fed¬ 
 eral, state or municipal, upon property, business, fran¬ 
 chises, or capital stock ; interest upon the improvement 
 bonds hereinafter mentioned, and payments to the sink¬ 
 ing fund for such bonds ; any other expenditures here¬ 
 inafter declared to be operating expenses; and the 
 organization expenses of the lessor, for which, in ad¬ 
 dition to sufficient office accommodations to be furnished 
 by the lessee, there shall be paid to the lessor at the 
 end of each successive three months, during the term 
 of this lease, the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars 
 {$2500), which gross annual payment shall cover and 
 include the three thousand dollars ($3,000) to be paid 
 to the trustees under its mortgage.)” 
 
 Take the second item : “The lessee shall pay, as the 
 same become due, the rentals of all railroads leased to 
 either the lessor or the lessee, and the interest on the 
 permanent debt of both the lessor and lessee, a schedule 
 whereof is hereto annexed, and to that end shall pav to 
 the lessor such sums of money, at such times, as shall 
 enable it to meet punctually the interest on its debt as 
 the same matures.” 
 
 Now the third item: “After making the payments 
 specified in clauses first and second , and from the sur¬ 
 plus remaining the lessee shall retain to its own use the 
 sum of six hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($630,- 
 000.)” That pays the Boston and Maine ten per cent, 
 on its capital stock. The Boston and Maine takes the 
 first slice. 
 
 Now, fourth : “After making the payments and ap¬ 
 plications specified in clauses first , second, and third , 
 all surplus then remaining, up to the sum of one hun- 
 
* 
 
 34 
 
 dred thousand dollars ($100,000), shall be paid to the 
 lessor for its own use.” That goes to the Eastern to re¬ 
 duce its debt, which is now some thirteen or fourteen 
 millions. 
 
 The fifth clause: “ After making the payments and 
 applications specified in clanses first , second , third , and 
 fourth, and from the surplus then remaining the lessee 
 shall retain to its own use the sum of seventy thousand 
 dollars($70,000).” That goes to the Boston and Maine. 
 
 The sixth clause : “After making the payments and 
 applications specified in clauses first , second , third , 
 fourth , and fifth , all surplus then remaining, up to the 
 sum of three hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars 
 ($336,000), shall be paid to the lessor for its own use.” 
 
 ‘ That goes to pay dividends on the Eastern stock that 
 had been receiving no dividends—-five millions in 
 amount. 
 
 The seventh clause : “ After making the payments 
 and applications specified in clauses firsts second , third , 
 fourth , fifth , and sixth , any surplus then remaining 
 shall be retained by the lessee, but shall be applied to 
 permanent improvements upon the respective proper¬ 
 ties of the lessor and lessee fro rata according to mile¬ 
 age, including branches and leased roads, so far as such 
 improvements may be required, and the remainder, if 
 any, may be applied to the purchase, at the market 
 price, of any of the improvement bonds hereinafter pro¬ 
 vided for.” 
 
 Let me explain the provisions of the seventh clause 
 iust a moment. All improvements of a permanent char- 
 
 years under this lease must be made fro rata upon the 
 mileage of the entire system of that road, which, if it 
 obtains these roads, will be about two thousand miles. 
 After paying dividends on the Eastern stock and reduc- 
 
 t 
 
35 
 
 N 
 
 ♦ 
 
 ing the debt one hundred thousand dollars annually, if 
 it can find one hundred thousand dollars for the purpose 
 of permanent improvements, it would have $17,000 for 
 the year's entire permanent improvement upon these 
 two upper roads—and only $17,000. Now, is there any 
 escape from this?—I ask for light if there is. If there 
 is any gentleman in this house who can explain it in any 
 different light, I will thank him to rise here and take 
 my time and explain it. [Applause.] I say that, un¬ 
 der this lease, iron-clad, made by the Eastern to the 
 Boston and Maine, no improvements can be made on 
 those upper roads except in that ratio. 
 
 Now, where are your permanent improvements com¬ 
 ing from? If you want an extension, who is to build it? 
 By the very conditions of that lease the Boston and 
 Maine cannot do it until all these conditions are ful¬ 
 filled. And I tell you, gentlemen, that explains why, 
 in the Hazen bill, there are no promises to make im¬ 
 provements. [Applause.] 
 
 I do not like to insist upon a challenge ; but I repeat,, 
 if there is any gentleman here who can explain this to 
 me or to you in any other light, as we stand here today 
 at this eventful hour, I will thank him to rise and do it. 
 
 Mr. Bell: How about the improvement bonds that 
 are provided for? 
 
 Mr. Moore : Now, the gentleman from Exeter, asks 
 me—how about the improvement bonds that are pro¬ 
 vided for in the very next provision of this lease. I am 
 glad that the gentleman from Exeter called my attention 
 to that, because thereby hangs a tale. I will read a 
 little further—“ The lessee shall from time to time make 
 such permanent improvements in and upon the demised 
 premises as the requirements of business may make 
 necessary and proper. To meet the cost of such per¬ 
 manent improvements, and of the like improvements 
 
36 
 
 upon its own property, the lessee shall issue its bonds, 
 to be called “Improvement Bonds.” Such bonds shall 
 run for the longest period allowed by law, and shall be 
 secured by a sinking fund, the annual payments to 
 which shall not exceed (except with the written consent 
 of the lessor) one and one-half (i 1-2) per cent, of the 
 face of the bonds, and which said payments, as well as 
 the annual interest on the said bonds, shall be deemed 
 to be operating expenses, and be paid out of gross 
 earnings as part thereof.” 
 
 .A little further it says that “ the permanent improve¬ 
 ments (which are provided for in this lease) shall, for the 
 purposes of this lease, be as follows, to wit.—” I call your 
 attention especially to this. I said, in speaking of the 
 Cheshire Railroad, that I should have occasion to call 
 your attention later to another matter; and that other 
 matter is right under your eyes here. For what are 
 these improvement bonds to be issued, upon which the 
 Boston and Maine is not only to pay the interest from 
 the earnings paid by the people and the business, but 
 they are to provide a sinking fund of one and a half 
 per cent, to liquidate these bonds at their maturity. 
 Now, for what purpose? First, for “ any increase in 
 track mileage.” Just think of it—-just think of it—a cor¬ 
 poration like the Boston and Maine providing for im¬ 
 provement bonds to run for the “ longest period allowed 
 by law ” in order to pay for “ track mileage”! And 
 what is “ track mileage ” ? Sidings are track mileage; 
 and upon almost every great railroad in New England 
 the sidings are nearly equal to the main line. And yet it 
 is provided right here that improvement bonds, upon 
 which interest must be paid by the people and the busi¬ 
 ness, shall be issued to pay for track mileage—a thing 
 we struck out of the Cheshire bill because it had never 
 been known to the policy of New Hampshire. Do 
 
37 
 
 you see the pit, gentlemen, in which you are about to 
 fall if you pass this Hazen bill? 
 
 But it does not stop there. Look at the next item. 
 
 “Any increase in the number of any class of rolling- 
 stock over the number in existence and inventoried at 
 the inception of this lease.” 
 
 A great, rich and powerful corporation providing for 
 improvement bonds to pay for all the increase in its 
 equipment—the very thing we struck out of the Ches¬ 
 hire bill; and every member of the majority of that 
 committee voted to strike it out. [Applause.] And 
 yet, they propose here by the passage of this Hazen 
 bill to approve of this great corporation’s adopting a pol¬ 
 icy right in the teeth of the policy that has always ex¬ 
 isted in the State of New Hampshire. 
 
 But it does not stop there, gentlemen. Read the 
 next clause : 
 
 “Third—Buildings or other structures in the nature 
 of improvements to real estate, which do not replace but 
 are in addition to buildings and structures in existence 
 at the inception of this lease ; it being understood, how¬ 
 ever, that in the reconstruction of buildings and struc¬ 
 tures (including bridges) the excess in cost of the new 
 structures over the cost of restoring the old structures to 
 • as good a condition as when new, shall be treated as an 
 improvement expense.” 
 
 Gentlemen, think of it! A great, rich and pow¬ 
 erful corporation providing for the issue of improve¬ 
 ment bonds for the longest term known to the law, 
 to build a little passenger station, to revamp an old 
 one and make it a little better, and provide in the 
 lease that every dollar of that expense should be paid 
 for by improvement bonds. Why, gentlemen, look at 
 the pit in which you are about to fall if you pass this 
 
38 
 
 Hazcn bill,—to put yourselves into the clutches of a 
 great and powerful monopoly that is bound by an iron¬ 
 clad contract to dispose of its great property in this 
 manner, and to do it bv wringing from the business and 
 the people the revenue that is to pay for it, while it 
 should be paid for out of the earnings as current ex¬ 
 penses of a railroad. 
 
 Why, gentlemen, I had the audacity to ask Mr. C. S. 
 Mellen, general superintendent of the Boston and 
 Lowell Railroad, standing right upon this floor here, if 
 he in his experience ever heard of a railroad issuing its 
 capital stock to pay for new equipment. And he said 
 he never did, for this reason : that all equipment wears 
 out in from eight to ten years, and if you issue against 
 that any permanent indebtedness, that permanent in¬ 
 debtedness is duplicated every eight or ten years, and 
 made to pile up mountain high. That gentleman, right 
 upon this floor, showed the folly of the course that is 
 marked out here by the Boston and Maine Railroad. 
 
 But they do not stop here. They are after improve¬ 
 ment bonds. Look at this ! 
 
 Fourth: “ The reconstruction of buildings and struc- 
 lures and the reorganization of yards and terminal fami¬ 
 lies for freight and passengers at Boston and Portland.” 
 You are to help pay for the reorganization of the yards 
 and terminal facilities at Boston and Portland; and the 
 business of New Hampshire, flowing down in a steady 
 stream from these upper roads for ninety-nine years, is 
 lo go to help pay for all these things. 
 
 Fifth: Such other matters and things in nature of 
 new construction as shall be agreed to be such by the 
 parties hereto, or shall be decided to be such by the rail¬ 
 road commissioners of Massachusetts, or a majority of 
 them, upon the application of either party. 
 
 They thought of everything they could, and, not 
 
39 
 
 thinking of anything more, they thought of a general 
 inclusive clause that should take in everything they 
 could not think of. 
 
 In the last nineteen years the passenger earnings of 
 the Boston, Concord and Montreal have gained 206 per 
 cent. In 1864 they were $113,000; in 1883 they were 
 $348,000. The freight earnings on the Boston, Con¬ 
 cord and Montreal twenty years ago were $186,000; in 
 1883, $503,000—a gain of 172 per' cent. In the next 
 twenty years, if the same ratio continues, and there is 
 no reason to suppose it will not, the passenger earnings 
 of the Boston, Concord and Montreal will be $1,067,158 ; 
 and its freight earnings, $1,367,000—an increase of 
 nearly 200 per cent. It is about the same with the 
 Northern Railroad ; it is a little less, but the ratio is 
 nearly constant. All this enormous increase in the bus¬ 
 iness of these upper roads is not to go to your benefit 
 under this lease, but it is to go to the coffers of the Bos¬ 
 ton and Maine, and the things that I have read to you 
 must be carried out before they can make any perma¬ 
 nent improvement there, unless they do it by issuing 
 permanent improvement bonds, still further increasing 
 the indebtedness of the corporation. 
 
 Now, look at the contrasts between the conditions that 
 exist there, and the conditions that would follow the 
 union of your roads with the Concord road. Why, it 
 seems to me that no gentleman in this house, coming 
 here upon his oath, and upon his responsibility as a 
 representative and intelligent man, can possibly be de¬ 
 ceived by this thing. There is no escape from the con¬ 
 ditions of the Eastern lease. It is a trap. And the 
 reason is this: The Eastern Railroad stock, before that 
 lease was made, commanded hardly #any price in the 
 market. As was told you by Gen. Marston, it had gone 
 down to three dollars a share. Now, that stock fell into 
 
40 
 
 a very few hands. It was bought up largely by a few 
 rich stockholders in that road and in the Boston 
 and Maine. When that lease was perfected, which 
 compelled the Boston and Maine to obtain the‘largest 
 possible revenue that it could earn, regardless of any¬ 
 thing else, and then to divert that revenue to the pay¬ 
 ment of dividends on the Eastern stock, that stock went 
 right up within two years from io per cent, up to 135 ; 
 and it stands today, at the last quotation, no, I believe, 
 no dividends yet paid. Now, this is the scheme, gentle¬ 
 men : it is to lift that great indebtedness of the Eastern 
 Railroad; it is to pay dividends upon that five millions 
 of stock ; and it is to improve those great properties by 
 the issuance of additional improvement bonds, which 
 will be taken by the capitalists of those roads. 
 
 Now, there is something beyond this ; the scheme 
 does not end here. So far as we are concerned, I have 
 nothing to say against the scheme as between the Boston 
 and Maine and the Eastern. But I say, as monstrous 
 as this is for the people of New Hampshire, it is not the 
 whole of it. What is beyond it? At the last session 
 of the Maine legislature the Boston and Maine Railroad 
 obtained an act allowing them the right to issue their 
 own stock and buy up all the roads with which they are 
 connected in the states of Massachusetts, New Hamp¬ 
 shire and Maine ; and I have the act right here. They 
 applied to the legislature of Massachusetts for the same 
 thing, but they were twice defeated; but it is the cur¬ 
 rent belief that they will succeed next winter. 
 
 What does that scheme embody? The scheme is 
 this, I call your attention especially to it. When the 
 Boston and Maii^e buys up its leased lines, that are 
 leased anywhere from four and a half to eight per 
 cent., and gives its own stock in the place of that stock, 
 under the laws of this state and under the laws of the 
 
\ 
 
 41 
 
 state of Massachusetts and the state of Maine, it can 
 take ten per cent, dividends. Now, the gentlemen who 
 are fortunate enough to get hold of these roads, the 
 leased lines, and own the property and get the ex¬ 
 change, are simply going to put millions into their 
 pockets by the operation. Because that stock, when it 
 becomes the stock of the great consolidated corporation, 
 can pay, under the law, ten per cent. And hundreds 
 of thousands of dollars more will be wrung from the 
 people and from the business along the lines. 
 
 Gentlemen, I am going to state something upon my own 
 responsibility as a man and as a representative here. I 
 so thoroughly believe that this Hazen bill is such an in¬ 
 iquity, that it will work such calamity and such wrong 
 to the people of New Hampshire, and especially to these 
 upper lines, that I cannot upon my oath here as a repre¬ 
 sentative sit silent when I know of some things that 
 ought to be said here. And I say that upon my own 
 responsibility, and as a representative and as a man, I 
 propose to state them. 
 
 I charge that behind this scheme which I have de¬ 
 tailed to you there is a stock-jobbing and stock-manip¬ 
 ulating plot in which Boston brokers are corruptly en¬ 
 gaged. That is the charge. Now I propose to present 
 you the proof. There is a member sitting in this 
 house who, in a broker's office in the city of Boston, was 
 offered three thousand dollars if he would vote for the 
 Hazen bill and work for its passage. Why was it? 
 Because that broker is engaged to parties who will pro¬ 
 fit by the passage of that bill by the stock manipulations 
 that lie behind it. 
 
 I charge, further, that in a broker's office in the city 
 of Boston a member of this legislature was shown the 
 books of that broker, and the transactions were all ex¬ 
 plained to him. That broker made sixty thousand dol- 
 
4 2 
 
 lars by the Worcester deal. He furnished the money 
 that was used in operating that deal. And he offered 
 that member of this legislature a chance to go into that 
 deal and make from ten to fifteen thousand dollars if he 
 would vote for the Hazen bill. That member is listen¬ 
 ing to me at this moment. I cite these things because 
 because I believe it to be my duty, my sworn duty, 
 to state to you what lies behind this great scheme. I 
 believe it involves wrong and calamity to the state of 
 New Hampshire, and that I should be faithless to my 
 trust if I sat here silent when I know these things. 
 
 Gentlemen, I am not going to weary you much long¬ 
 er. There is still one other phase of this question, and 
 that is the political phase. And I shall advert to it but 
 briefly. But I shall advert to it because I believe it to 
 be my duty. 
 
 Gentlemen, I am a Republican. The Republican 
 party is in a majority in this house and in this legislature. 
 It is responsible for the legislation. When I say that, I 
 cast no reflection upon the minority here. All majority 
 parties are responsible for the legislation that they en¬ 
 act. And whether this measure be good, or whether it 
 be ill, the Republican party cannot escape the ultimate 
 responsibility for this thing. Now, as a Republican, I 
 believe it to be my duty to oppose this thing, because it 
 would be a wrong and a calamity to this state. I be¬ 
 lieve it would be a wrong and a calamity to the Repub¬ 
 lican party; and that that party, if this measure passes, 
 ought to be held responsible for this kind of legislation. 
 Since I have come to this legislature I have made the 
 acquaintance of several Democrats whom I never knew 
 before. I have found them interested in this measure 
 just as I have been ; I have found them taking the same 
 views of this measure, politically and financially, that I 
 have taken. And I must say in acknowledgment to 
 
43 
 
 those gentlemen, that I am exceedingly gratified that I 
 have made their acquaintance at this session. I have a 
 higher opinion, not only for those Democrats in particu¬ 
 lar, but for all Democrats in general, from acquaintance 
 with those gentlemen. I have found them, in every in¬ 
 stance, so far as I can judge, simply* actuated by an 
 honest and earnest purpose here to enact such legisla¬ 
 tion as will be for the interest of the people of New 
 Hampshire. Now, I say that the Republican party will 
 be responsible for this legislation, and must be held re¬ 
 sponsible for it. No Republican here can afford to place 
 his party, and no Democrat here can afford to place his 
 party in such a precarious position as it will be by the 
 
 enactment of this measure. 
 
 ✓ 
 
 . Now, in 1883 I expressed the opinion that if we should 
 have general consolidation in this state, with the rail¬ 
 road commission and the courts, the people would be 
 safe. I expressed that opinion then, believing that we 
 would have in this state two or three systems. I never 
 dreamed, and I do not believe any one else really 
 dreamed, that under the legislation of 1883 it would be 
 possible or practicable for one corporation to absorb all 
 the railroads in New Hampshire. But that, gentlemen, 
 is practically the problem before us today. Its political 
 aspect presents itself to me a little different from the 
 way it was presented in 1883. I have great respect for 
 the courts of New Hampshire. I believe that whatever 
 comes the supreme court of New Hampshire will stand 
 firm and true. But, gentlemen, I sa^here, and now— 
 and I think I know something whereof I speak—that 
 with only one railroad in the State of New Hampshire, 
 your railroad commission will be substantially controlled 
 and owned by that railroad. That is my honest opinion, 
 my deliberate judgment. I do not believe it will be 
 possible in the nature of things for a railroad commis- 
 
44 
 
 sion, so intimately connected with the railroad power of 
 this state as it would be under those circumstances—I 
 do not believe that three men can be selected, or will 
 be selected, in the State of New Hampshire who can 
 withstand its blandishments. So I say that it is a 
 dangerous thing for us to enter upon this step. One 
 railroad controlling New Hampshire will control the 
 politics of the state. It is so in Pennsylvania. The Re¬ 
 publicans have the good-will of the Pennsylvania Rail¬ 
 road and they carry the state. In California, the Dem- 
 ocrts have the good-will of the railroads and they carry 
 the state. And so it is everywhere. Wherever a party 
 gets the help of the railroad power, it is the dominant 
 party. The railroad power in some way manages to 
 control the state. It does not do it directly ; but does 
 it in that subtle, that tortuous way, which in nine cases 
 out of ten is much more effective than direct approach. 
 
 A little incident transpired right here during this ses¬ 
 sion of the legislature, within a week, that caps the 
 climax of this argument, and proves that all I say is 
 true. I want to call your attention to it as an example 
 of the inevitable result that must follow where a railroad 
 man obtains dominant power in a state. Down here in 
 Rockingham county is the little town of Danville. It is 
 located off the railroads ; it has but one mail a day. 
 The other day the citizens to the number of seventy- 
 three, leading men of that little town, petitioned 
 George E. Dame, superintendent of the mail service in 
 New Hampshire,'to supply that little town with an ad¬ 
 ditional mail. Note the request: how proper. There 
 are shoe factories there. Having but one mail is found 
 to be a great detriment to the town. The representative 
 from that town, with two or three citizens, came to Con¬ 
 cord. He had been previously told by Frank Jones 
 that if they would get up a petition there, he would en- 
 
45 
 
 dorse it, send it on to Washington, and they would get 
 what they wanted. They came up within a week, called 
 upon Frank Jones, presented the petition, and asked 
 him to endorse it. This was a petition for a little addi¬ 
 tional mail service, a thing which is so necessary to us 
 all, whether we belong to one party or to another. 
 They asked Frank Jones to endorse it, as he had told 
 them he would. Did he do it? What was the ques¬ 
 tion he put to them? “Will you help me upon this 
 measure up here in the legislature before I endorse that 
 petition ? ” The gentleman is one of the oldest members 
 of this house. He is listening to me now. Fie hesitated ; 
 he said, “I am a representative here; this question 
 is before the people and the legislature ; I am under my 
 oath to discharge my duty here, and do it rightly. I 
 did not suppose when you said you would endorse that 
 petition I was to pledge you that I would vote for the 
 Hazen bill.” Mr. Jones said: “I do not ask you to 
 pledge me, but I want you to help me before I will sign 
 that petition.” They dallied for half an hour, and then 
 the representative said : “ Mr. Jones, will you sign that 
 petition, or will you not?” And Mr. Jones said, “I 
 will not sign it unless you will help me.” The repre¬ 
 sentative left. FIc handed me the petition, and here it 
 is—here it is without Mr. Jones’ signature. And that 
 representative is on this floor listening to me at this 
 very moment. [Applause.] There, gentlemen, you 
 have it in the green twig. A man so powerful, so rich, 
 so autocratic, that he will say to a representative of the 
 people, sworn faithfully to discharge his duties, say 
 to him that before he shall have a little additional mail 
 service in his town, “ Pledge yourself to help me.” They 
 left higi without obtaining his name to that petition—an 
 honest and ingenuous petition—to aid that little town. 
 O shame, gentlemen ! Shame, gentlemen, upon such a 
 
 j 
 
46 
 
 lack of manhood as that! Shame, gentlemen, that we 
 have fallen upon such times in New Hampshire, that 
 we have an autocrat here who can say to a representa¬ 
 tive of the people, “Get down upon your knees, cringe 
 to me, pledge yourself to do my bidding and my work 
 before you shall have what is due you as a citizen of 
 your town.” 
 
 And this, gentlemen, is but a page of the chapter that 
 is to come to us if, for these long ninety-nine years, you 
 allow the railroads to pass into such hands as these—to 
 pass into the hands of stock manipulators and stock 
 jobbers—aye, gentlemen, to pass into the hands of stock 
 gamblers and of political autocrats. This is only a 
 sample, gentlemen, whether you are Republicans or 
 Democrats, of what is to happen to you by this legisla¬ 
 tion. You, gentlemen, may cast your vote for it, but as 
 for me, as said the gentleman from Claremont, I say 
 here that before my tongue shall utter a “no” against 
 this motion to indefinitely postpone, I hope that Provi¬ 
 dence will paralyze that tongue. [Applause.] 
 
 *