And now those pampered millionaires have carried their defiance of the law to the point of forcing the Governor of California to call an extra session of the Legislature to compel them to obey the law. Speaking of these matters a very able orator said in one of his speeches in the extra session:
“It is stated in the proclamation of the Governor to convene this Legislature, that for three or four years past the principal railroads in this State have set at defiance the laws of the people; that they have refused to pay their taxes; that they had set up within our borders an imperium in imperio; that they had avowed and declared themselves free from the laws of the State under which they hold their organization; that there were no laws in this State to which they were bound to submit and pay such taxes as would have fallen to them had they been subject to the laws of the State, etc., etc. It has not occurred before in the United States that a great Commonwealth has been defied successfully by its own creatures.”
Other speakers followed, and we of California have now, at least, the satisfaction of knowing that faithful hearts and bright intellects have been aroused and are watching the strides of the monster power.
The Spanish population of the State are proud of their countryman, Reginaldo del Valle, who was one of the first to take a bold stand against the monopoly. This young orator with great ability and indomitable energy, has never flagged in his eloquent denunciations of the power which has so trampled the laws of California and the rights of her children.
Mr. Breckinridge, another brilliant orator, speaking of the pertinacious defiance of the law exhibited by the monopolists, said: “Nothing but a shock, a violent shock, a rude lesson—such as the old French noblesse got when they saw their chateaux fired and their sons guillotined—will awaken them from their dream of security.”
The champions of right fought well, fought nobly, in the legislature, but alas! the gold of the monopoly was too powerful, and the extra session, called to devise means of compelling the railroad corporation to obey the law, adjourned—adjourned, having failed in accomplishing the object for which it was called.
The legislators themselves acknowledged that corruption was too strong to be withstood. Mr. Nicol said:
“There was once a belief that the legislature of California was a high, honorable body, into which it should be the pride and glory of fathers to see their sons gain admission. I have been here two sessions, and instead of being a place to which an honorable ambition should prompt a young man to aspire, I believe it to be the worst place on the continent. We are surrounded by a lobby which degrades every man here by constant temptation and offers of corruption; the monopoly has made it no place where a careful father will send his son.”
If these powerful monopolists were to speak candidly, would they say that the result of their struggle for money in the last fourteen years of their lives has compensated them for that shoulder-to shoulder fight with opponents who were in the right, and must be vanquished by foul means? “I shall see the grass grow over Tom Scott,” prophetically wrote Mr. Huntington several times. He had his wish. The grass grows over Tom Scott. Mr. Huntington can claim the glory of having laid low his powerful opponent, for it is well known that the ten years' struggle for the Texas Pacific undermined Colonel Scott's health beyond recovery. Broken down in health, he left Mr. Huntington master of the field. But is the victory worth the cost? The fight was certainly not glorious for the victor. Is it to be profitable? Many lives have been wrecked, many people impoverished, much injustice done, and all for the sake of having the Southern Pacific Railroad without a rival, without competition. This road runs mostly through a desert; how is it to be made profitable? In their eager pursuit of riches, the projectors of it miscalculated the inevitable, and did not foresee that other capital could, in a few years, build competing lines through more favorable routes; did not foresee that it would have been a better policy to adhere honestly to the terms of their first charter; did not foresee that it would have been better not to sacrifice San Diego. No, they deemed it a wiser plan to kill Tom Scott, to kill San Diego, and then take the money earned in this manner to go and build railroads in Guatemala and in British America. To men who do not think that in business the rights of others should be considered, this policy of crushing or desolating everything in the path of triumphant accumulators no doubt is justifiable. But why should the rich enjoy rights that are “deadly to other men?” It is alleged in defense of the California railroad monopolists that as they do not think it would be lucrative to run a railroad to San Diego, they do not build any. If this were a true allegation, why did they fear the Texas Pacific as a competing road? Why did they spend so much money and ten years of their lives to kill that railroad? Surely, if they knew so well that a road to San Diego would not pay, why were they so anxious to prevent its construction? Was it out of a purely disinterested and philanthropic solicitude for their rivals? Did Mr. Huntington wish “to see grass grow over Tom Scott” because he kindly desired to prevent his financial ruin?
Obviously, to maintain that the monopoly did not build a road to San Diego because it would not pay, and that they would not allow Tom Scott to build it either, for the same reason, is not logical. If to construct and run such road would have been ruinous, that was the very best of reasons for allowing it to be built. This would have been as effective a way of getting rid of Colonel Scott as by seeing grass grow over his grave.