The Railroad Question / A historical and practical treatise on railroads, and remedies for their abuses

CHAPTER VIII. RAILROADS IN POLITICS.

The question might be asked how the railroad companies for many years in succession have been able to prevent State control and pursue a policy so detrimental to the best interests of the public. One might think that in a republic where the people are the source of all power, and where all officers are directly or indirectly selected by the people to carry out their wishes and to administer the government in their interest, a coterie of men bent on pecuniary gain would not be permitted to subvert those principles of the common law and public economy which from time immemorial have been the recognized anchors of the liberty of the Anglo-Saxon race.

The statement that under a free government it is possible for a few to suppress the many might almost sound absurd to a monarchist, and yet is it true that for the past twenty-five years the public affairs of this country have been unduly controlled by a few hundred railroad managers.

To perpetuate without molestation their unjust practices and prevent any approach to an assertion of the principle of State control of railroad transportation, railroad managers have secured, wherever possible, the co-operation of public officials, and, in fact, of every semi-public and private agency capable of affecting public opinion. Their great wealth and power has made it possible for them to influence to a greater or less extent every department of the National and State governments. Their influence extends from the township assessor's office to the national capital, from the publisher of the small cross-roads paper to the editorial staff of the metropolitan daily. It is felt in every caucus, in every nominating convention and at every election. Typical railroad men draw no party lines, advocate no principles, and take little interest in any but their own cause; they are, as Mr. Gould expressed it, Democrats in Democratic and Republicans in Republican districts. The large means at the command of railroad companies, their favors, their vast armies of employes and attorneys and their almost equally large force of special retainers are freely employed to carry into execution their political designs, and the standard of ethics recognized by railroad managers in these exploits is an exceedingly low one.

It is a settled principle of these men that, if they can prevent it, no person not known to be friendly to their cause must be placed into any public office where he might have an opportunity to aid or injure their interests. The records of the various candidates of the principal parties for city, county, State and national offices are therefore carefully canvassed previous to the primaries, the most acceptable among the candidates of each party are selected as the railroad candidates, and the local representatives of the railroad interest in each party are instructed to use all means in their power to secure their nomination.

If none but candidates who are servile to the railroad interest are nominated by the principal parties, the election is permitted to take its own course, for, whichever side is successful, the railroad interest is safe. If, however, there is reason to believe that a nominee is not as devoted to their interests as the nominee of an opposing party, the latter is sure to receive at the polls whatever support railroad influence can give him. That a public official elected by the grace of a railroad manager is but too apt to become a tool in his hands needs no proof. Both gratitude and fear tie the average politician to the powerful forces which can control his political destiny.

The railroad manager, on the other hand, always kindly remembers his officeholding friends as long as they are loyal and in a position to serve him. Before the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act there was every year a wholesale distribution of railroad passes among public officeholders and other prominent politicians. The pass was the token of the continued good will of the railroad dignitaries as the withholding of the "courtesy" was a certain indication of their displeasure. If the officeholder had personal or political friends whom he desired to have recognized, an intimation of this desire was generally sufficient to have the pass privilege even extended to them. And yet these favors were not bestowed indiscriminately. Thus the pass credit of a county official was more limited than that of an officer of the State, and the latter class were again rated according to their influence and rank. Furthermore, while annual passes were thus freely distributed among one class of officials, others could obtain them only by making special application for them. Members of the legislature would not unfrequently receive their supply of railroad passes before their certificates of election were issued, but legislative committee clerks and employes in the various departments of the State government were required to satisfy the railroad authorities that they were in a position to aid or to injure the railroad cause before their names were placed on the list of persons "entitled to the courtesy".Of course the judiciary, as a coÖrdinate branch of the government, could not well be slighted. Indeed, previous to the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Law, a judge would have regarded it an affront if he had not been furnished with passes by the various companies operating railroads in his district. It appears that the law has not entirely corrected this abuse, for only about two years ago the Chicago News made the discovery that nearly every judge in the city of Chicago traveled on passes. It is strange to what extent the pass often debased the judiciary. It was not unfrequent for judges to solicit passes for family and friends, and instances might be named where they demanded them in a wholesale way.

The impudent demands were usually honored by the railroad authorities, who reasoned that they could better afford to bear the shameless effrontery of the ermined extortioner than the damage which might result to them from adverse decisions.

A railroad pass, when presented by a public official or even by any public man, is now, in nine cases out of ten, a certificate of dishonor and a token of servility, and is so recognized by railroad officials. What equivalent railroad companies expect for the pass "courtesy" is well illustrated by the experience of an Iowa judge. This gentleman, who had been on the bench for years and always had been favored with passes by the various companies operating lines in his district, at the beginning of a new year failed to receive the customary pass from a leading road. Meeting its chief attorney, he took occasion to call his attention to what he supposed to have been an oversight on the part of the officer charged with the distribution of the passes. The attorney seemed to take in the situation at once. "Judge," said he, "did you not recently decide an important case against our company?" "And was my decision," replied the Judge, "not in accordance with law as well as with justice?" The attorney did not answer this question, but in the course of a few days the Judge received the desired pass. A few months later it again became the Judge's unpleasant duty to render a decision adverse to the same company. This second act of judicial independence was not forgiven, and the next time he presented his pass it was unceremoniously taken up by the conductor in the presence of a large number of passengers, and he was required to pay his fare.

Employes, while engaged in the legitimate business of their companies, should, of course, be transported free, but a great many persons receive passes and are classed as employes who never render any legitimate service for the company giving the pass, and by far the greater portion of passes are not granted from pure motives, but are given for the purpose of corrupting their holders. It arouses antagonism, because as a rule passes are given to people who are fully able to pay their fare and are denied to those who are least able to pay it. The passenger who pays his fare and then finds that a large number of his fellow-passengers travel on passes realizes that he is compelled to pay a higher fare that others may be carried free. He feels that he is unjustly discriminated against, and wonders why such discrimination is tolerated in a country whose institutions are founded upon the very principle of equal rights to all. A good anecdote is related which well illustrates this feeling. A farmer and a lawyer occupied the same seat in a railroad car. When the conductor came the farmer presented his ticket, and the lawyer a pass. The farmer's features did not conceal his disgust when he discovered that his seat-mate was a deadhead. The lawyer, trying to assuage the indignation of the observing granger, said to him: "My friend, you travel very cheaply on this road." "I think so myself," replied the farmer, "considering the fact that I have to pay fare for both of us."

But what must be a passenger's surprise when he finds that the judge who to-morrow is to preside at the trial of a case in which the railroad company is a party to-day accepts free transportation at its hands. A judge may scorn the charge that he is influenced by a railroad pass, but his fellow-passenger who has paid his fare cannot understand why the railroad company should give passes to one class of people and refuse them to others, if it does not consider one more than others to be in a position to reciprocate its favors.

In their endeavor to win over the courts, however, the railroads do by no means confine their attention to the judges. They are well aware that a biased jury is often more useful to them than a biased judge, and efforts are made by them to contaminate juries, or at least prejudice them in their favor. A prominent Iowa attorney, the legal and political factotum of a large railroad corporation, for years made it a practice to supply jurors with passes. In one instance, when it was shown in court by the opposing counsel that all jurors in the case on trial had accepted passes from the railroad company which was the defendant in the case, the judge found himself compelled to discharge the whole jury. The argument made by this counsel, in support of his motion that the jury be discharged, was certainly to the point. He showed that in order to have an equal chance for justice it would be necessary for his client to give each juror at least fifty dollars to offset the bribes given to them by the railroad company.That it has always been the policy of railroad managers to propitiate the judiciary is a fact too generally known among public men to admit of contradiction. If a judge owes his nomination or election to railroad influences, railroad managers feel that they have in this a guarantee of loyalty. If, however, he acquires the ermine in spite of railroad opposition, every effort is made to conciliate the new dispenser of the laws. The bestowal of unusual favors, flattery, simulated friendship and a thousand other strategies are brought into requisition to capture the wayward jurist. If he proves docile, if his decisions improve with time and show a gradual appreciation of the particular sacredness of corporate rights, the railroad manager will even forgive him his former heresy and rally to his support in the future. But if he asserts his convictions, if he attempts to discharge the duties of his responsible office without fear or favor, if he can neither be corrupted nor intimidated, all available railroad forces will be marshaled against him in the future.

It cannot be surprising that, under such circumstances, there always has been a tendency among judges to be conservative and to give the railroads the benefit of the doubt in their decisions. Judges well know that railroad companies appeal almost invariably when the decision of a lower court is adverse to them, but private citizens only in exceptional cases. They also know that railroads never forgive adverse decisions, whether right or wrong, while private citizens, as a rule, accept the decision of the court as justice, and do not hold the judge responsible for its being adverse to them. Our judiciary is, and probably always has been, as incorruptible as the judiciary of any country in the world; but our judges are made of no better material than our legislative or executive officers. Weak men, in all stations, are influenced by wealth and power, and weak judges can always be found who will be led or forced from the path of duty so long as corrupt men are permitted to manage railroads and to remain in possession of a power only inferior to that of an autocratic ruler.

The influence which railroads exert extends from the lowest to the highest court of the land. Federal courts have more than once been successfully appealed to to give legal sanction to the perpetuation of gigantic frauds, or to frustrate attempts made by the individual States to place restrictions upon roads operated within their respective borders. Twenty years ago a Federal judge aided Mr. Gould in his notorious Erie transactions, and in more recent years a Federal circuit judge in the West threw the property of the Wabash Railroad Company, upon the application of its own directors, into the hands of receivers selected by its former managers without the knowledge or notice of its creditors, and issued orders for the management of the property which greatly discriminated in favor of certain bondholders and were so manifestly unjust that Judge Gresham, before whom the case was subsequently brought, did not hesitate to say to them that "the boldness of this scheme to aid the purchasing committee, by denying equal right to all bondholders secured by the same mortgages, is equaled only by its injustice." At the same time one of the counsel for the dissenting bondholders characterized these strange orders as "the highwayman's clutch on our throat, the robber's demand, 'Your money or your life.'"

The decision which the Supreme Court of the United States rendered in the Granger cases in 1876, affirming the right of a State to control railroad charges for the transportation of passengers and freight wholly within the State, was a serious disappointment to railroad men, for it was the first step toward wresting from them the power to arbitrarily control the commerce of the country. Ever since that time it has been their determined purpose to bring about, if possible, a reconstruction of the Federal Supreme Court, in order to secure a reversal or modification of the Granger decision. In the case of Peik vs. Chicago, 94th U. S., 176, the Supreme Court laid down the following broad principle of law: "Where property has been clothed with the public interest, the legislature may fix a limit to that which shall in law be reasonable for its use. This limit binds the courts as well as the people. If it has been improperly fixed, the legislature, not the courts, must be appealed to for a change." In one of the Granger cases the same court used the following language: "We know that this is a power which may be abused, but that is no argument against its existence. For protection against abuses by legislatures, the people must resort to the polls."

Fourteen years later, in the case of C. M. & St. P. R. Co. vs. Minn., decided in October, 1890, the same court rendered a decision so indefinite that the lawyers differed much in their opinions as to its meaning, and it appears that the members of the court who made the decision also differed in their opinions as to the meaning of the decision; for Justice Bradley said in his dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gray and Justice Lamar concurred, that the decision practically overruled Munn vs. Illinois; but the same court, in a case entitled Budd vs. New York, submitted in October, 1891, and decision rendered February 29, 1892, and opinion delivered by Justice Blatchford, in referring to the Minnesota case, after quoting the above statement from Justice Bradley, said: "But the opinion of the court did not say so, nor did it refer to Munn vs. Illinois, and we are of opinion that the decision in that case is, as will be hereafter shown, quite distinguishable from the present case."

It is thus apparent that this court has adhered to the decision in Munn vs. Illinois, and to the doctrines announced in the opinion of the court in that case, and those doctrines have since been repeatedly enforced in the decisions of the courts of the States.

Judge Brewer, whose zeal for the defense of corporate interests seems to amount almost to a craze, dissented. He said: "I dissent from the opinion and judgment in these cases. The main proposition upon which they rest is, in my judgment, radically unsound. It is the doctrine of Munn vs. Illinois reaffirmed. The paternal theory of government is to me odious. Justice Field and Justice Brown concur with me in this dissent."

It should be remembered that Justices Brewer and Brown were both appointed to the Supreme bench by President Harrison.

We have every reason to believe that, unless the people of the United States are on the alert, as railroad managers always are, there is, with further changes in the personnel of the court, danger of its deviating from the sound principles of law laid down in its decision in the Granger cases. Railroad attorneys have repeatedly been raised to seats in the highest tribunal in the land. So great is the power of the railroad interests, and so persistent are they in their demands, that, unless a strong public sentiment records its protest, their candidates for appointive offices are but too apt to be successful. Representatives of the railroads sit in the Congress of the United States, others are members of the national campaign committees of both of the great political parties, others control the politics of the States, and their influence reaches to the White House, whether its occupant is aware of it or not. Other interests in the past have succeeded in securing the appointment of biased men as judges of the Supreme Court who afterwards could always be relied upon to render decisions in their favor. Will the people profit by their experience, or will they be indifferent to the danger which surrounds them, until nothing short of a political upheaval can restore to them these rights of sovereignty, of which they have so insidiously been deprived?

Human gratitude is such that even high-minded men who, through the influence of the railroad interest, have been placed upon the Federal bench, find it impossible to divest themselves of all bias when called upon to decide a case in which their benefactors are interested. Such is the human mind that, when clouded by prejudice, it will forever be blind to its own fault. Even the members of so high a tribunal as the Electoral Commission which decided the presidential contest between Hayes and Tilden could not divest themselves of their prejudices; each one, Republican or Democrat, voted for the candidate of the party with which he had cast his political fortune.

Last January, in an address delivered before the New York State Bar Association at Albany, Mr. Justice Brewer reminded his hearers that the rights of the railroads "stand as secure in the eye and in the custody of the law as the purposes of justice in the thought of God." And further on they were told that "there are to-day $11,000,000,000 invested in railroad property, whose owners in this country number less than two million persons. Can it be that whether that immense sum shall earn a dollar or bring the slightest recompense to those who have invested perhaps their all in that business, and are thus aiding in the development of the country, depends wholly upon the whim and greed of that great majority of sixty millions who do not own a dollar? It may be said that that majority will not be so foolish, selfish and cruel as to strip that property of its earning capacity. I say that so long as constitutional guarantees lift on American soil their buttresses and bulwarks against wrong, and so long as the American judiciary breathes the free air of courage, it cannot."

Unfortunately judicial buttresses and bulwarks have not always been lifted against wrong. Judge Taney, like Brewer, supposed that it was left at his time for his court to preserve the peace and provide for the safety of the nation; but history has shown that we cannot depend upon that high tribunal for safety when it is controlled by weak or inefficient men.

When we consider what "that great majority" has done for this country in the past, and is doing for it at the present time, and especially when we contrast its sense of justice and right with the weakness and inability of some of its public servants, does it not seem to be a little presumptuous for them to assume that "the danger is from the multitudes—the majority, with whom is the power," and that, were it not for their superior wisdom and patriotic action, this great government of the people, by the people and for the people would be a failure?

Mr. Lincoln never feared "the whim and greed" of "that great majority," but he had at all times implicit confidence in the great mass of the people, and they in return had full confidence that no temptation of wealth or power was sufficient to seduce his integrity.

We cannot dismiss this subject without referring to a stratagem which railroads have in the past repeatedly resorted to for the purpose of removing from the bench judges of independent minds whom they found it impossible to control. This stratagem consists of a well-disguised bribe, by which a Federal judge is changed into a railroad attorney with a princely salary. The railroad thus gets rid of an undesirable judge and gains a desirable solicitor at a price at which they could well have afforded to pension the judge.

The following is a copy of a broker's circular letter sent to prominent bankers of Iowa, and shows that even the Clerk of the United States Court is not overlooked:

"——, June 30th, 1892.

"Mr. ——,

"We offer, subject to sale at par and interest, note $2,500. Date, July 5th, 1892. Time, six months; rate, 6 per cent. Payable where desired. Maker, —— Endorser, Judge —— Mr. ——, the maker, is clerk of the United States Circuit Court at —— Judge —— the well known attorney of the —— and —— Railway Co., of ——, stated to us to be worth $150,000 to $200,000. Can you use it?"

While railroad managers rely upon servile courts as a last resort to defeat the will of the sovereign people, they are far from losing sight of the importance of controlling the legislative branch of the government. By preventing what they are pleased to call unfriendly legislation they are more likely to prevent friction with public opinion, and they avoid at the same time the risk of permanently prejudicing their cause by an adverse opinion upon a constitutional question which they may find it necessary to raise in order to nullify a legislative act. There are three distinct means employed by them to control legislative action. First, the election to legislative offices of men who are, for some personal reason, adherents to the railroad cause. Second, the delusion, or even corruption, of weak or unscrupulous members of legislative bodies. Third, the employment of professional and incidental lobbyists and the subsidizing of newspapers, or their representatives, for the purpose of influencing members of legislative bodies and their constituencies.

There are probably in every legislative body a number of members who are in some way or other connected with railroad corporations. No doubt, a majority of these are personally irreproachable and even so high-minded as to always postpone private for public interest; yet there are also those whose political advancement was brought about by railroad managers for the very purpose of having in the legislative body servile members who could always be relied upon to serve their corporate masters. Nevertheless, were railroad interests restricted to the votes of these men for their support, the public would probably have no cause for alarm on account of the presence of railroad representatives in legislative bodies, but, as many other interests seek favorable legislation, railroad men are often enabled to gain support for their cause by a corrupt bargain for votes, and it is thus possible for them to double, triple, and even quadruple, their original strength, by a policy of reciprocity.

As in Congress and State legislatures, so these representatives of the railroads may be found in our city councils. The leaders of the railroads in Congress and in the legislatures of the various States usually rely upon discretion for obtaining their end, but railroad aldermen with but few exceptions seek to demonstrate their loyalty to the cause to which they are committed by a zealous advocacy of extreme measures, and will not unfrequently even gain their end through the most unscrupulous combinations. If their votes, together with such support as they obtain by making trades, are not sufficient to carry out or defeat a measure which the railroad interests may favor or oppose, even more questionable means are employed to gain a sufficient number of votes to command a majority.

Outright bribery is probably the means least often employed by corporations to carry their measures. While it may be true that the vote of every weak and unscrupulous legislator is a subject of barter, money is not often the compensation for which it is obtained. It is the policy of the political corruption committees of corporations to ascertain the weakness and wants of every man whose services they are likely to need, and to attack him, if his surrender should be essential to their victory, at his weakest point. Men with political ambition are encouraged to aspire to preferment and are assured of corporate support to bring it about. Briefless lawyers are promised corporate business or salaried attorneyships. Those in financial straits are accommodated with loans. Vain men are flattered and given newspaper notoriety. Others are given passes for their families and their friends. Shippers are given advantages in rates over their competitors; in fact, every legislator disposed to barter his vote away receives for it compensation which combines the maximum of desirability with the minimum of violence to his self-respect.

Those who attempt to influence or control legislative bodies in behalf of interested parties are collectively called the lobby. As a rule, the lobby consists of prominent politicians likely to have influence with members of their own party; of men of good address and easy conscience, familiar alike with the subject under consideration and legislative procedure, and last, but not least, of confidential agents authorized and prepared to enter into secret negotiations with venal members. The lobby which represents the railroad companies at legislative sessions is usually the largest, the most sagacious and the most unscrupulous of all. Its work is systematic and thorough, its methods are unscrupulous and its resources great. Yet all the members of a legislative body cannot be bribed, either by money, or position, or favors. Some of them will not vote for any proposed measure unless they can be convinced that it is for the public welfare. These legislators, if their votes are needed, are turned over to the persuasive eloquence of those members of the lobby who, apparently, have come to the capital moved by a patriotic impulse to set erring legislators right on public questions. Their familiarity with public matters, their success in public life, their high standing in political circles, their apparent disinterestedness and their plausible arguments all combine to give them great influence over new and inexperienced members. In extreme cases influential constituents of doubtful members are sent for at the last moment to labor with their representatives, and to assure them that the sentiment of their districts is in favor of the measure advocated by the railroads. Telegrams pour in upon the unsuspecting members. Petitions in favor of the proposed measure are also hastily circulated among the more unsophisticated constituents of members sensitive to public opinion, and are then presented to them as an unmistakable indication of the popular will, although the total number of signers forms a very small percentage of the total number of voters of the districts in which these petitions were circulated. A common method employed by the railroad lobby in Iowa has been to arouse, by ingenious arguments, the prejudices of the people of one part of the State against those of another, or of one class against those of another class; for instance, the East against the West, or that portion of the State the least supplied with railroad facilities against that which is best supplied; or the river cities against the interior cities; or the country people against the city people; or the farmer against the merchant, and always artfully keeping in view the opportunity to utilize one side or the other in their own interest.

Another powerful reinforcement of the railroad lobby is not unfrequently a subsidized press and its correspondents. The party organs at the capital are especially selected to defend as sound measures, either from a partisan or non-partisan standpoint, legislation of questionable propriety desired by the railroads. When such measures are advocated by party organs, partisan members, either from fear or prejudice, are apt to "fall into line," and then to rely upon these organs to defend their action. Editors, reporters and correspondents are even retained as active lobbyists and give the railroad managers' cause the benefit of their prestige. To such an extent has the abuse of the press been carried that a considerable number of its unworthy representatives look upon railroad subsidies as legitimate perquisites which they will exact through blackmailing and other means of compulsion if they are not offered. A case may be cited here to illustrate their mode of operation, as well as the ethics of railroad lobbies. During one of the sessions of the Iowa legislature a newspaper correspondent came in possession of some information which reflected severely on the railroad lobby. He made his information the subject of a spicy article and showed it to a friend who stood close to the gentleman chiefly implicated, with the remark that nothing but a hundred dollar bill would prevent the transmission of the article by the evening mail to the paper which he represented. Before sundown the stipulated price for the correspondent's silence was paid, and an enemy was turned into a friend.

Professor Bryce says of the American lobby system: "All legislative bodies which control important pecuniary interests are as sure to have a lobby as an army to have its camp followers. Where the body is, there will the vultures be gathered together." To such an extent is the lobby abuse carried that some large corporations select their regular solicitors more for their qualifications as lobbyists than for their legal lore. It is a common remark among lawyers that a great company in Chicago pays a third-class lawyer, who has the reputation of being a first-class lobbyist, an extravagant salary and calls him general solicitor, while it relies upon other lawyers to attend to its important legal business. The readiness of members of the bar to serve wealthy corporations is fast bringing the legal profession of America into disrepute abroad. The author just quoted, in speaking of its moral standard, says: "But I am bound to add that some judicious American observers hold that the last thirty years have witnessed a certain decadence in the bar of the great cities. They say that the growth of enormously rich and powerful corporations, willing to pay vast sums for questionable services, has seduced the virtue of some counsel whose eminence makes their example important, and that in a few States the degradation of the bench has led to secret understandings between judges and counsel for the perversion of justice."There are, of course, able and honorable attorneys employed by railroad companies, but often railroad lawyers are selected more for their political influence, tact and ingenuity than for legal ability, and, as a rule, the political lawyer receives much better compensation for his services than does the lawyer who attends strictly to legitimate legal work.

The danger from railroad corporations lies in their great wealth, controlled by so few persons, and the want of publicity in their business. Were they required to render accounts of their expenditures to the public, legislative corruption funds would soon be numbered with the defunct abuses of railroad corporations, and, with bribes wanting in the balance of legislative equivalents, the representatives of the people could be trusted to enact laws just alike to the corporations and the public, while asserting the right of the people to control the public highway and to make it subservient to the welfare of the many instead of the enrichment of the few. A wise law regulating lobbies exists in Massachusetts. Every lobbyist is required to register, as soon as he appears at the Capitol, to state in whose interest and in what capacity he attends the legislative session, to keep a faithful account of his expenses and to file a copy of the same with the Secretary of State. Were a similar law enacted and enforced by every State legislature, as well as by Congress, the power of railroad lobbies would be curtailed.

Railroad managers never do things by halves. Well realizing that it is in the power of a fearless executive, by his veto, to render futile the achievements of a costly lobby and to injure or benefit their interests by pursuing an aggressive or conservative policy in the enforcement of the laws, they never fail to make their influence felt in the selection of a chief magistrate, either of the Nation or of an individual State. No delegate, with their permission, ever attends a national convention, Republican or Democratic, if he is not known to favor the selection of a man as the presidential candidate of his party whose conservatism in all matters pertaining to railroad interests is well established. At these conventions the railroad companies are always represented, and their representatives do not hesitate to inform the delegates that this or that candidate is not acceptable to their corporations and cannot receive their support at the polls. During the Chicago convention of 1888 the statement was openly made that two of the Western candidates lost Eastern support because they were not acceptable to a prominent New York delegate who had come to Chicago in a threefold capacity—that of a delegate, a presidential possibility, and special representative of one of the most powerful railroad interests in the country. This same man appeared again last year at the Minneapolis convention as chief organizer of the forces of a leading candidate. His counterpart was in attendance at the Chicago convention looking after the same interests there.

It is the boast of prominent railroad men that their influence elected President Garfield, and the statement has been made upon good authority that "not until a few days before the election did the Garfield managers feel secure," and that "when the secret history of that campaign comes to be written it will be seen that Jay Gould had more influence upon the election than Grant and Conkling." It cannot be said that railroad managers, as a class, have often openly supported a presidential candidate. This may be due to the fact that with the uncertainty which has for years attended national politics they deem it the part of discretion to pretend friendship for either party and then shout with the victor. In conformity with this policy, a well-known New York railroad millionaire has for years made large and secret contributions to the campaign funds of both political parties. He thereby places both parties under political obligations, and believes his interests safe, whichever turn the political wheel may take. After the contest he is usually the first to congratulate the successful candidate. In the national campaign of 1884 this railroad king completely outwitted a prominent Western politician and member of the Republican national campaign committee who has always prided himself on his political sagacity. This gentleman had taken it upon himself to enlist the rich and powerful New Yorker in the Republican cause, and to obtain from him, as a token of his sincerity, a large contribution to the Blaine campaign fund. He succeeded, at least so far as the contribution was concerned; but when the struggle was over and the opposition, in the exuberance of joy over their victory, told tales out of school, he was not a little chagrined to find that the managers of the Cleveland campaign had received from the astute railroad millionaire a campaign contribution twice as large as that which he had obtained from him. The diatribes which for weeks after the election filled the columns of his paper reflected in every line the injured pride of the outwitted general.

Judging from the laxity with which the railroad laws have been enforced in a considerable number of States, their executive departments are as much under the influence of railroad managers as are the legislative departments of others. This cannot be surprising to those who know how often governors of States are nominated and elected through railroad influences, and what efforts are made by corporations to humor servile and to propitiate independent executives. The time is not far remote when nearly every delegate to a State convention had free transportation for the round trip. This transportation was furnished to delegates by railroad managers through their local attorneys, or through favored candidates and their confidants. It was only offered to those who were supposed to be friendly to candidates approved by the railroad managers; and as free passage was looked upon as the legitimate perquisite of a delegate, but few persons could be induced to attend a State convention and pay their fare. As a consequence, the railroad managers found it too often an easy matter to dictate the nomination of candidates.

Since the adoption of the Interstate Commerce Law convention passes, as such, have largely disappeared; but many a prominent politician in going to and returning from political conventions travels as a railroad employe, though the only service which he renders to the railroad companies consists in manipulating conventions in their favor. If all the railroad candidates—and the companies usually take the precaution to support more than one candidate—are defeated in the convention of one party, and a railroad candidate is nominated by the other party, the latter is certain to receive at the polls every vote which railroad and allied corporate influence can command.

One might suppose that an attempt would at least be made to hide from the general public the interference of such a power with the politics of a State; but railroad managers seem to rely for success as much upon intimidating political parties as upon gaining the good will of individual citizens. To influence party action, the boast has in recent years repeatedly and boldly been made in Iowa that 30,000 railroad employes would vote as a unit against any party or individual daring to legislate or otherwise take official action against their demands, and forgetting that, with the same means used in opposition to them, a few hundred thousand farmers and business men could be easily organized to oppose them. Unscrupulous employers often endeavor to control the votes of their employes. This is particularly true of railroad companies, and they use many ingenious plans to accomplish it. In the Northwest, and especially in Iowa, they have for several years organized their employes as a political force for the purpose of defeating such candidates for State offices as were known to favor State control of the transportation business. They have even paid the expenses of the organization, although they have made every effort to make it appear as if the movement was a voluntary one on the part of their employes. They are employing this method in Texas and other States at the present time, in opposition to the effort that is being made by the people to secure just and reasonable treatment from the railroads.

That the chief executive of a State should be influenced in the discharge of his official duties by such favors as passes, the freedom of the dining- and sleeping-car, by the free use of a special car, or even a special train, one is loath to believe; yet it is a fact, and especially during political campaigns, that such favors are frequently offered to, and accepted by, the highest executive officers, and it is equally true that many of these officers often connive at the continued and defiant violations of law by railroad officials. While the men who manage large railroad interests do not always possess that wisdom which popular reverence attributes to them, they certainly possess great cunning, and expend much of their artfulness in efforts to win over scrupulous, and to render still more servile unscrupulous executives. The general railroad diplomate never omits to pay homage to the man in power, to flatter him, to impress him with the political influence of his company, to intimate plainly that, as it has been in the past, so it will be in the future its determined policy to reward its friends and to punish its enemies. If the executive proves intractable, if he can neither be flattered, nor coaxed, nor bribed into submission, he does not hesitate to resort to intimidation to accomplish his purpose. This is by no means a rare occurrence. There are few public men who, if determined to do their duty, have not been subjected to railroad insult and intimidation. The author may be permitted to give an instance from his personal experience. Soon after his inauguration as Governor of Iowa a general officer of one of the oldest and strongest Western railroads called at his office and importuned him with unreasonable requests. When he found that he had utterly failed to impress the author with his arguments, he left abruptly, with the curt remark that these matters could be settled on election day, and he emphasized his statement by slamming the door behind him.

A servile railroad press has always been ready to misrepresent and malign executive officers who have refused to acknowledge any higher authority than the law, the expressed public will and their own conception of duty. This abuse has even been carried so far that the editorial columns of leading dailies have been prostituted by the insertion of malicious tirades written by railroad managers and railroad attorneys; and the fact that public opinion has not been more seriously influenced by these venal sheets must be solely attributed to the good judgment and safe instinct of the masses of the people.However persistently railway organs deny it, it is a matter of general notoriety that railway officials take an active part in political campaigns. Hundreds of communications might be produced to show their work in Iowa, but the following two letters, written by a prominent railroad manager to an associate, will suffice for the purpose. It will be noticed that one was written before and the other after election. Comments upon their contents are unnecessary:

"——, Iowa, Nov. 2nd, 1888.

"Dear Sir: I have just discovered this P. M. that the Central Committee have sent electrotypes to all the printing offices in the State of the State ticket, with the names of the Railway Commissioners and Supreme Judge in so small a space as to make it very difficult, if not impossible, to write in the names. I am having slips made with Commissioners' names and Judge written on them, and they will be sent to all agents, not later than to-morrow, to paste over the printed names on the ticket, and thus beat this scheme. Have you seen any tickets yet? And what do you think of this plan?

"Yours truly,
"——"

"——, Iowa, Nov. 11, 1888.

"Dear Sir: Repeating the old and time-honored saying: 'We have met the enemy and we are theirs.' The Democratic Granger and the largely increased Republican vote was too much for us. Many friends voted with the railway men, but to no purpose. The comparison between Granger and Smyth will tell more than anything else the strength of the railway vote. But we are badly used up, and may as well take our dose.

"Yours truly,
"——"

While the result of this election was indeed a bad dose for speculating railway managers, it is the opinion of the masses and of railway stockholders, who are more interested in the general welfare of the roads than in speculation in their stocks, that the dose was well administered, and should be repeated whenever the necessity for it may again arise.

It is probably true that railroad managers have lost much of their former influence in politics. As their means of corruption have become generally known they have become less effective. The public is more on the alert, and corrupt politicians often find themselves unable to carry out their discreditable compacts.

But it is unreasonable to expect the evil to cease until the cause is removed. The trouble is inherent in the system, and the fault is there more than in the men who manage the business, and not till the great power exercised by them is restrained within proper limits will the evil disappear. All this can be accomplished when there shall be established a most thorough and efficient system of State and National control over the railroad business of the whole country.

Clyx.com