MY WAR ON THE RAILROADS.
SCENES IN THE LEGISLATURE--SHARP-SHOOTING--PROPOSITIONS FOR A NEW
CAPITAL OF CONNECTICUT--THE RIVALRY OF CITIES--CULMINATION OF THE
RAILROAD CONTROVERSY--EXCITEMENT AMONG THE LOBBYISTS--A BILL FOR
THE BENEFIT OF COMMUTERS--PEOPLE PROTECTED FROM THE PLUNDERERS--HOW
SETTLERS ARE DRAWN INTO A STATE AND THEN CHEATED BY THE RAILROAD
COMPANIES--EQUAL RIGHTS FOR COMMUTERS AND TRANSIENT
PASSENGERS--WHAT COMMODORE VANDERBILT DID--WHAT THE NEW YORK AND
NEW HAVEN RAILROAD COMPANY WANTED TO DO--EXPOSURE OF THEIR
PLOT--CONSTERNATION OF THE CONSPIRATORS--MY VICTORY--AGAIN ELECTED
TO THE LEGISLATURE--UNITED STATES SENATOR FERRY--EX-GOVERNOR W. A.
BUCKINGHAM--THEODORE TILTON--GOVERNOR HAWLEY--FRIENDS AT
LINDENCROFT--NOMINATED FOR CONGRESS AND DEFEATED.
During my membership in the Connecticut Legislature of 1865, I made
several new friends and agreeable acquaintances, and many things
occurred, sometimes in the regular proceedings, and sometimes as
episodes, which made the session memorable. On one occasion, a
representative, who was a lawyer, introduced resolutions to reduce the
number of Representatives, urging that the “House” was too large and
ponderous a body to work smoothly; that a smaller number of persons
could accomplish business more rapidly and completely; and, in fact,
that the Connecticut Legislature was so large that the members did not
have time to get acquainted with each other before the body adjourned
_sine die_.
I replied, that the larger the number of representatives, the more
difficult it would be to tamper with them; and if they all could not
become personally acquainted, so much the better, for there would be
fewer “rings,” and less facilities for forcing improper legislation.
“As the house seems to be thin now, I will move to lay my resolutions on
the table,” remarked the member; “but I shall call them up when there is
a full house.”
“According to the gentleman’s own theory,” I replied, “the smaller the
number, the surer are we to arrive at correct conclusions. Now,
therefore, is just the time to decide; and I move that the gentleman’s
resolutions be considered.” This proposition was seconded amid a roar of
laughter; and the resolutions were almost unanimously voted down, before
the member fairly comprehended what was going on. He afterwards
acknowledged it as a pretty fair joke, and at any rate, as an effective
one.
The State House at Hartford was a disgrace to Connecticut; the Hall of
Representatives was too small; there were no committee rooms, and the
building was utterly unfit for the purposes to which it was devoted. The
State House at New Haven was very little better, and I made a strong
effort to secure the erection of new edifices in both cities. I was
chairman of the committee on new State Houses, and during our
investigations it was ascertained that Bridgeport, Middletown and
Meriden would each be willing to erect a State House at its own cost, if
the city should be selected as the new capital of the State. These
movements aroused the jealousy of Hartford and New Haven, which at once
appointed committees to wait upon us. The whole matter, however, finally
went by default, and the question was never submitted to the people. It
is quite possible, however, that ere long the citizens of Bridgeport or
Meriden will offer to build a capitol, and that one of these two cities
with the entire consent of the rest of the State, including the
inhabitants of Hartford and New Haven, will become the capital of
Connecticut.
As the session drew near its close, the railroad controversy culminated
by my introduction of a bill to amend the act for the regulation of
railroads by the interpolation of the following: