o O cr- o CO to' o Q NEW HAMPSHIRE'S ENSLAVEMENT BY THE FKEE PASSES, THE ALE AND RUM AND THE CORRUPTION MONEY OF THE RAILROADS. THE PEOPLE'S $3,000,000 IN THE CONCORD RAILROAD, INSUFFICIENT RAILROAD TAXATION. SENATOR CHANDLER'S REVIEW OF "THE BOOK OF BARGAINS." In two series of articles printed within the last year it has been my duty (1) to repel a false, malicious, and injurious charge made against me by three corrupt co- conspirators and slanderers, Jacob H. Gallinger,Herman W. Greene, and Cyrus A. Sulloway; (2) to expose a treasonable bargain I arranged by said Greene and other Republicans after the close election of November 4th, 1890, to sell the re- sult to the Democratic leaders, Frank Jones, Charles A. Sinclair, and others and to elect against truth and right Charles H. Arnsden governor instead of HIRAM A. TUITLE; (3) to exhibit to the people the condition of slavery [which prevails, under which Jones and Sinclair, ale brewers and railroad millionaires, by means of illegal free [passes and railroad corruption money lave completely subjugated to their >ase uses all the Democrats, a vicious [body of mercenary Republicans, the jdicors, the lawyers, and substantially the public officials from governor down to the lowest doorkeeper; with the consequences of enormously increased drunkenness and brutal crime, the issue of millions of watered railroad stock, the larceny with the approval of the supreme court judges of the state's interest, worth $2,000,000, in the Con- cord railroad, the grossest evasion of taxation by the railroad companies, the success of swindling endowment orders, and through these corruptions and crimes the widespread degrada- tion of society and the debasement of public and private morality in New Hampshire; and (4) to point out the great Republican peril which has resulted and the sure way of Republi- can safety and success in the coming political canvass of 1892. A careful review at this time of all that has been written, made with the sincere desire to withdraw any mis- statement of fact, to modify any exaggerated expression, and to qual- ify any unjust criticism of the action of others, does not lead me to an- nounce any change. This remarkable fact is to be noticed that from no one of the persons or interests assailed has there proceeded any denial of any facts charged. They might all well enough feel at perfect liberty not to reply to expressions of opinion or to mere denunciation. But clear and specific statements of fact, widely published, which are exceedingly de- rogatory to individuals and condem- natory of important organizations, private and public, cannot be allowed to pass for a long period undenied without an inference which becomes conclusive with lapse of time that the facts charged are absolutely true. Therefore what has been written stands as written and all specific facts charged remain undenied, unim- peached, and substantially admitted. The purpose of this paper is only to restate and reinforce the case in re- spect of a few living subjects which vastly concern the taxpaying people of New Hampshire. I. THE PEOPLE'S $3,000,000 IN THE CON- CORD RAILROAD. The state has an interest worth more than two and one quarter million dol- lars in the Concord railroad; and ought to obtain that amount and ap- ply it to the payment of the state debt which is $2,260,000. The state's right was reserved in the 17th section of the charter of the road granted in 1835. It was to take the whole prop- erty of the stockholders after 20 years by paying them the cost of the road and any arrears of dividends be- low 10 per cent. The cost was $1,500,- 000 and the arrears of dividends below 10 per cent, have been during 50 years $660,000, making $ 2, 1(50,000 the exact sum the state is bound to pay in order to satisfy the stockholders and to be- come the owner in the name of the people of all the property. The road is worth at the present market value of the stock of over 170 at least the sum of $5,160,000; or $3,000,000 more than the state must pay for it. Moreover, the right of the people to take the Concord railroad remained undisputed for more than 50 years. No citizen, lawyer, or judge ever sug- gested or argued that the right given by the 17th section had gone. Before the Hall- Cogs well- Sturtevant com- mission the counsel for the road ad- mitted the state's right to take the road and the commission so reported to the legislature. The road argued .that its stockholders should be paid interest on the $2,160,000, but simple interest would only amount to $1,000, 000 and if the state pays that interest it will pay only $3,000,000 and the road is worth $2,000,000 more than it would thus cost. Why then are no effective steps taken to obtain the value of the people's interest in the Concord rail- road ? The reasons are easily to be seen. The Concord railroad with its small cost and enormous earning capacity its cost of $1,500,000 and its value of $5,000,000 has been for years a sub- ject of contemplated larceny by rail- road speculators. It was in fact stolen twice under cunning legal contriv- ances ; once long ago by the Northern and Montreal companies jointly, and again lately by the Boston & Maine railroad, and the supreme court only with great reluctance and after much delay compelled the robbers to let go their hold. A third larceny has been committed by the directors of theConcord railroad 3 themselves- They organized a syndi- cate and bought at low rates the con- trolling stock interest in the Montreal road and then united the two roads so that the surplus value of the Concord should go to make extremely valuable their stock in the Montreal. They, as trustees of a living road, bought a road which was almost a corpse and tied the living to the dead in order to revive the dying at the expense of the living, to their own vast personal profit. They have made millions of dollars for themselves, but they have done it by stealing from the state the surplus value of the Concord railroad over $2,000,000, which belonged to the people as clearly as does the state house at Concord. Of course this gross plunder of the people by a railroad syndicate could not have been accomplished without the aid of a submissive governor, a subjugated legislature, and an un- faithful judiciary. Neither of the three was lacking. The question of the state's interest in the Concord railroad was forced before the legis- lature of 1891 against the objections of all the railroad hirelings, both within and without that body. The house asked certain questions of the judges; and here began one of the worst judicial wrongs ever perpetrat- ed in a free community. For some reason the Concord rail- road managers have always in recent years been able to command a major- ity of the judges of the supreme court of New Hampshire. This demand for $2,000,000 in the name of the people pressed the company into the closest strait in which it ever found itself and it fell back upon the last and strong- est of the lines of defence which for years it had been building; the judges. The railroad syndicate did not trust in vain to their friends in exceeding high places. But the result seemed to astonish even themselves. There is nothing like audacity in judicial mis- conduct. It is safer than hesitating mi t judgment. The judges on March 30, 1891, heard Messrs. H. G. Sargent and Wayne MacVeaghin behalf of the people and M-. F. S. Streeter for the railroad. The very next day Judges Doe, Allen, Smith, Clark, and Biod- gett wrote to the house of representa- tives in substance that the 17th sec- tion of, the Concord railroad charter was void and of no force or effect whatever, and that the road could not be taken at all under that section. This was a most amazing announce- ment. For 50 years no human being had ever doubted the validity of the 17th section. The railroad company had admitted its existence in full force and had only contended for the payment of interest on the arrears of dividends. On the hearing before the judges the question of interest had been the only point seriously argued except that the railroad for the first time through Mr. Streeter feebly suggested that the act of 1889 authorizing the union of the Montreal with the Concord road had operated as a surrender of the state's right in the latter road, to which it was con- clusively answered that the 14th sec- tion of the act of 1889 contained these words: "Nothing in this act shall impair any rights or interests the state may have * * * in the Con- cord railroad." But the astounding assertion was made by the judges that the 17th sec- tion was gone. No reasons whatever were given for this opinion but rea- sons were promised at some future M175620 day. Nine months have elapsed and they have not been given. None are likely to be given for none exist which can be given. TJiere never was an opinion so utterly at variance with all truth, so utterly destitute of all legal logic, so founded on error and so unsupported by anything resem- bling argument. Prior to this date I have said that I believed that the monstrous opinion of the judges was as much of a sur- prise to the Concord railroad counsel and owners as it was to everybody else. I have changed that belief. I am now convinced that before the railroad and their lobbyists a- round the legislature consented to al- low the house to ask for the opinion of the judges, an intimation was given to them that they could safely do so and could rely upon the court to take care of the company. Upon receiv- ing that intimation the syndicate felt at ease ; submitted the question involv- ing two millions of dollars upon an argument made by only one counsel, Mr. Streeter; and the correspondent of their subsidized newspaper on the evening of March 30th confidently telegraphed to the Union: "The con- sensus of public opinion tonight is that the court will decide that the state waived its right a ad has now no interest in the Concord railroad." Several months after the opinion was given and while a curious legal profession and a defrauded people were looking for the reasons for the atrocious opinion of the judges this information came to me: That one of the judges said that there would be a surprise when the reasons were given; that it would be shown that the 17th section of the charter was repealed by a statute passed more than 20 years ago; that when the judges went into consultation one of them produced this statute, it was ac- cepted as conclusive, and the opinion was based upon it, but it was agreed that its existence should be kept se- cret until the reasons for the opinion should be published. For a long time I refused to credit this story. But since the chief justice has stated that the opinion was based upon a point not alluded to in the argument I have come to believe that the narrative given to me was true. What a mar- velous judicial picture is thus pre- sented. A claim of the people of New Hampshire against the Concord rail- road for $2,000,000 submitted to the judges; and argued by counsel on both sides. One of the judges knows a statute which he thinks repeals the law upon which the claim is based He does not call it to the attention of the counsel. He does produce it at the private consultation of the judges, forces a sudden decision in favor of the railroad company on that point alone, and arranges an agreement by which the judges are to keep secret the statute until he sees fit to surprise the public with it at a future day. The case would be bad enough if there were, in fact, such a repealing statute. What shall be said of the performance when no such statute exists? Can judicial chicanery and misbehavior go further? As soon as the chief justice stated that the case had been decided upon a point not argued by counsel, application was duly made for a rehearing, which has not been granted. The judges are willing to give a rehearing if they can first make sure they can, after fur- ther argument, adhere to their former opinion. As they have discovered that they cannot so adhere, a rehear- ing is to be refused. Of course a court composed of judges capable of such subserviency to a railroad company could not continue to exist a year except in an enslaved community. New Hampshire is in the iron grasp of two corrupt railroad rings. By free passes, mileage tickets, money, and other appliances every branch of the government executive, legislative, and judicial is held in a bondage as oppressive as that which the English people sundered by cut- ting off the head of Charles the First, and the French people by the revolu- tion of 1789. It is melancholy enough to have the newspapers smothered and the lawyers dishonorably silenced. It is dangerous enough to have the executive and the legislature possess ed by railroad corruptions. But the degradation is complete and damning when the judiciary passes under the yoke and beeomes the facile tool of soulless and corrupt corporations. Such a judiciary can be reformed and reorganized by the people together with the executive and the legislature, none too soon. II. THE EVASION OP TAXATION BY THE CONCORD & MONTREAL AND THE BOSTON & MAINE RAIL- ROADS. No attempt has been made by man or newspaper to deny any of the facts or to refute any of the arguments which I have presented showing the gross un- dervaluation for taxation of the rail- roads of New Hampshire. Yet the Laconia Democrat of October 19th, a subsidized newspaper, owned by a free pass, anti-Cogswell councillor, glories over the fact that the state board of equalization for the present year "have calmly gone their way along their old lines" and valued and assessed the railroads for 1891 substantially as they did for 1890. This is true, and more shame to the board. Councillor Lewis's corrupt jeer is like William M. Tweed's taunt of those who com- plained of his criminal robberies of the taxpayers of New York city: "What are you going to do about it?" It is due to Mr. John M. Hill, chair- man of the state taxation board, to- gay that he has constantly urged in- creased taxation of the railroads; and I am informed that he does not ac- cept free passes but pays his fare like 350,000 other citizens. This statement accords with his character a* a man of personal integrity and honor. The regret is that he does not make an issue with the other members of the board instead of submitting to the decisions of his wicked partners. The issue would go to the supreme court whose creatures the board are, and if not rightly decided by the court would get to the people at last. The board for 1891 have valued the railroads at $20,795,000 instead of $20,- 770,000 as for 1890. They changed their deduction from their estimate of the actual value from 12 per cent, to 6 per cent, and fixed the rate at $1.48 instead of $1.50, making the whole tax $283,- 042.72 instead of $268,018 62 as in 1890. Their changes in the valuations of the various roads are slight. The Ports- mouth, Great Falls & Con way sum of $500,000 has gone into the Boston & Maine, raising the latter from $2,250,- 000 to $2,750,000. The Cheshire and Monadnock have gone into the Fitch- burg, making the sum $1,635,000. The Whitefield & Jefferson appears for the first time at $125,000, but the Grand 6 Trunk ia reduced from $600,000 to $500,000, leaving the net increase on all the roads only $25,000 as above stated. It is easily to be understood that the baard can disregard the inquiry of any citizen and defy public opin- ion, because they are unconstitution- ally appointed and protected by su preme court judges holding office for life, and who are themselves existing under degrading subserviency to the railroads. But there are some taxpayers there may come to be more who demand light from the judges and the board on several points. FIRST. Why are the Concord & Montreal railroad properties valued at only the sum of $6,000,000 to which sum the board had arbitrarily reduced it after they themselves have found its stock and bonds to be worth as follows: $3,000,000 Concord stock at 150, $4,500,000 800,000 Montreal preferred at 130, 1,040,000 1,000,000 M ontreal common at 70, 700,000 4,128,000 Montreal bonds at par, 4,128,000 Total value, as they found it, $10,368,000 The taxpayers ask the board: Up- on what principle or for what reasons did you substitute $6,000,000 for $10,- 368,000 as the value for taxation of the Concord & Montreal railroad proper- ties? It could not have been done in order to reduce the railroad values as other values are supposed to be re- duced by the local assessors, for you subsequently proceeded to make a formal decision that other property had been reduced for taxation six per cent, and to take that percentage from the $6,000,000 leaving only $5,- 640,000 for which the company is tax- ed. Why did you change the actual value of $10,368,000 into $6,000,000? Will you give some reason; or will you and your masters, the judges and the railroads, continue to stand dumb? I have heard it said that the boird strike off the $4,000,000 because the bonded debt is about that amount. This would indeed be the old fraud in a new guise. The poor man's mort- gaged farm gets no reduction for tax- ation because of the mortgage which burdens it and eats out his little sub- stance. Is the Concord & Montreal railroad to be exempted from taxation to the amount of its mort- gages? If so let the fact be bravely known and face the people on that is- sue. That outrage was voted down in 1878; doea it now exist in defiance of law, but by order of the judges? SECOND. Why are the Boston & Maine rail- road properties in New Hampshire valued at only $2,750,000.00. Their total assets according to their own boojis are $42,862,993.58 Not taxed in New Hampshire, 40,112,993 58 Massachusetts does not tax so much of railroad property as is represented by mortgage bonds and funded debt. But the Bos- ton and Maine even then is rated in that state for taxation at $15,400,000 of which Massachusetts says $10,121,774 is the proportionate value outside her borders. The net income of the Boston & $5,000,000.00 37,142.97 4,798.66- Maine is and the road pays to the state of Nf w Hampshire for taxes The Eastern road pays to the state making a total from Boston & Maine and Eastern of $41,9)1.63 New Hampshire towns tax directly the B. & M. on $75,340 and the Eastern on 75,266 making $150,606, giving an additional tax at $1.50 of $2,256.00 or a total tax in New Hampshire of $44,197.63 The state of Massachusetts taxes the Boston & Maine and Eastern at $344,217.10 Her towns and cities also tax the B.& M. on $2.112,255 and the Eastern on 2,662,970 making $4,775,225 giving an additional tax at $1.50 of $71,628.30 or a total tax in Massachusetts of $415,845.40 as against a total tax in New B amp- shire of $44,197.63 Will the supreme court and the board of equalization condescend to descend from their lofty elevation long enough to tell the tax- payers of New Hampshire how they reach a Boston & Maine valuation of $2,750,- 000 and an Eastern valuation of $425,000 and a total taxation in New Hampshire of $44,197.63, as against a valuation of the B. & M. and Eastern for taxation in Massachusetts of $18,389,891.50 and a total taxation of $415,845.50? The question may in- fringe on the dignity of the court and the board, but it is strongly impressed on the minda of many tax -payers. THIRD. How do the supreme court and the state board ascertain that "the entire taxable property of the state has been reduced for purposes of taxation 6 per cent, of its actual value;" so that they proceed to take 6 per cent, from the actual railroad valuation and to tax only the remainder? The select- men and local assessors are sworn to "appraise all taxable property at its true and full value in money as they would appraise the same in payment of a just debt due from a solvent debtor." Sec. 1, oh. 56, page 147, Gen. Laws. The railroads are to pay taxes "upon the actual value of the road, rolling stock and equipments * * as near as may be in proportion to the taxation of other property * * in the several towns and cities in which such railroad is located." The state board is to determine the actual value and the rate of taxation. Sees. 1 and 2, ch. 62, page 159, Gen. Laws. This year the court and board say the selectmen and local assessors have undervalued the property 6 per cent ; last year they guessed it was 12 per cent. This year they guess the rate had better be $1.48. Last year they guessed it was $1.50. To reach these decisions some evidence should be examined. What was it; who pro- cured and submitted it? Are there any principles and rules which govern the court and the board in deciding upon the extent of the undervalua- tions practiced by the selectmen and local assessors and upon the rate at which railroads shall be taxed, or are they only guesses of the judges in- timated to the board ? Can light be had? At all events, nothing can be more absurd than the board's decision that in 1890 the selectmen and assessors undervalued 12 per cent, and in 1891, 6 per cent. Did the assessors change to the extent of 6 per cent. ? What is the evidence that they did ? The 6 per cent, decision is ridiculous; a mere guess of the court and the board in order to make a little less unendura- ble the greater wrong underneath, by which the roads whose value is near- er 40 milions than 20 are brought down below the latter figure. Either the local assessors have not under- valued at all or they have underval- ued more than 6 per cent. What a system of valuing and taxing railroads does our court and board bring forth! While waiting for answers to the foregoing questions, I submit an esti- mate of my own, as the lowest possi- 8 ble honest and just valuation that can be made: Valuation for Taxation of New Hampshire Railroads. State Board Valuation. Boston & Maine, 2,750,000 Concord & Clarernont, 600,000 Concord & Montreal, 6,000.000 Concord & Portsmouth, 600,00 i Connecticut River, 225,000 Dover & Winneyesaukee, 375,000 Eastern, 425000 Fitchburg, 1,63>,000 Grand Trunk, 500,000 Manchester & Keene, 12U,000 Manchester & Lawrence, 1,500,000 Manchester & North Weare, 80,000 Mt. Washington, 150,000 Nashua, Acton <& Boston, 20 000 Nashua