USA > Kentucky > History of Kentucky, Volume II > Part 60
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90
VII
ATTEMPT IN CONGRESS-SUCCESS IN THE KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE
Since the end of the war, people had begun to acquire a different idea of the National Government and of its powers. They now looked to Congress for many things, which they had formerly considered to he within the exclusive control of the states. With this idea in mind some of the more radical advocates of the Cincinnati Southern Rail- way, upon its first defeat declared that the only method for securing the road would be to go to Congress for it. A Kentuckian said, "We often hear such talk as this: Cincinnati has threatened to crack the Congressional whip over us if we do not give them a charter for her road." I But these threats were not confined to Cincinnati alone. A Chattanoogan immediately after the first defeat of the bill had advocated going to the National Government to secure the road under the guise of a mail route, which Congress undoubtedly had the right to estab- lish.2 And even some Kentuckians were in favor of having their state further "coerced and ruled" by the Federal power. The Frankfort Com- monwealth demanded congressional action, claiming that it would be acceptable to the people of Kentucky under the circumstances.3
But the trustees of the Cincinnati Southern were not yet ready to identify themselves with so tactless a move. They first intended to exhaust every possibility in Kentucky before taking such a radical step, well knowing that they would stand a much less chance of ever getting it from Kentucky, if they should once go to Congress. So they refused to allow their names to be used in connection with the scheme. But
38 Cincinnati Commercial, Jan. 25, 1871.
39 Ibid., Jan. 5; Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette, Jan. 6, 1871.
40 Cincinnati Commercial, Jan. 26, 1871; American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events. 1871, 431.
41 Cincinnati Commercial, Jan. 28, 1871.
42 Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 6; Collins, History of Kentucky, Vol. I, 200.
1 Cincinnati Commercial, Sept. 29, 1870.
2 Ibid., March 10.
3 Ibid., March 21.
AGAINST
FOR
NOT VOTING
VOTE IN THE KENTUCKY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE CINCINNATI SOUTHERN RAILROAD BILL, JAN. 25, 1871
975
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
a self-constituted committee in Cincinnati decided to stand sponsor for the movement and urge it on. They prepared a statement in the latter part of March, 1870, a copy of which was sent to all the Ohio members of Congress, arguing that Kentucky would never grant the right-of- way, and hence there was nothing to be lost in prejudicing their case with that state. They, furthermore, claimed that congressional action would be constitutional, and they urged the delegation to support such a measure.4
In pursuance of this movement John Sherman, an Ohio senator at this time, introduced on March 15, 1870 "A bill to promote commerce and to cheapen the transportation of the mails and military and naval stores between Cincinnati and Chattanooga." 5 This was to be done by building a railroad to be called the "Cincinnati and Chattanooga Rail- road." The trustees of the Cincinnati Southern refused to be named as incorporators in this bill, seeing too well that it could be of abso- lutely no value to them. The bill was designed to incorporate a company with a charter-something that Cincinnati did not want. It was, indeed, highly necessary for the trustees to avoid any move that would tend to regard them as a corporation or attempt to make them one. They were the City of Cincinnati and needed no further incorporation nor powers conferred by a charter. What they wanted was merely the per- mission to build a railroad across the state of Kentucky-nothing more. As the Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette expressed it, "Charters are as plentiful as blackberries in Kentucky." 6 The bill had not gone far before it met a strong enemy in the person of Garrett Davis, senator from Kentucky.7
Upon the second defeat of the Cincinnati Southern bill in the Ken- tucky Legislature, there began to arise in Central Kentucky, itself, strong sentiment for congressional action. The Cincinnati Commercial said, "A very large proportion of the people of Kentucky are greatly and justly irritated by the conduct of Louisville business men and hide- bound politicians throughout the State on this question. We presume that the intervention of Congress will be invited in this matter." 8 The trustees, themselves, had by this time become convinced that their main hope lay in Congress. So, on February 9, 1871, at their request, John Sherman introduced a bill in the United States Senate, providing for a right-of-way for a railroad across the State of Kentucky.9 Four days later Job E. Stephenson, a representative from Cincinnati, introduced a bill in the House "to promote the construction of the Cincinnati and Southern railway." 10 The fight in Congress was now on.
It was a strange happening when Kentuckians were found evoking the National power against their own state government. And it was generally with a word of regret that most of them began. But they claimed that 300,000 Kentuckians had been outraged by their own Leg- islature, and that the only way left to get justice was to go to Congress. Meetings were held throughout Central Kentucky to promote sentiment for the congressional bill. In Covington, persons were stationed at the ferries, railway station, and other public places to secure signatures
4 Report of the Committee on Railroads of the Board of Trade of Cincinnati on the Congressional Bill Incorporating the Cincinnati and Chattanooga Railroad Company (Cincinnati, 1879), a pomphlet in Cincinnati Miscellaneous Pamphlets, Vol. I, in Wisconsin Historical Library.
5 Congressional Globe, Part 3, 41 Cong., 2 Sess., 1869-1870, 1948.
6 Jan. 24, 1871; Cincinnati Commercial, March 18, 1870.
7 Congressional Globe, Part 4, 41 Cong., 2 Sess., 2862.
8 Ferguson, Founding of the Cincinnati Southern Railway, 56; Cincinnati Com- mercial, Jan. 26, 1871.
9 American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events, 1861, 431.
10 Congressional Globe, Part 2, 1870-1871, 41 Cong., 3 Sess., 1186; Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 14, 1871.
1
976
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
for a petition to Congress.11 Boyle County citizens met in Danville and passed resolutions calling upon the Kentucky senators and repre- sentatives to vote for the bill. But their traditional jealousy of Federal interference showed itself when they demanded an amendment to the bill, providing that all cases arising in connection with this railroad should be tried exclusively in Kentucky courts.12 Lexington held a meeting urging Congress to pass the bill.13 Petitions went up from many of the Central Kentucky counties begging Congress for favorable action.14
The South, also, was able to forget for a time its hatred of Federal interference in state affairs. Numerous committees from Tennessee and Georgia went to Washington to lobby for the road.15 In the Atlanta New Era a writer asked that "Every city, every village and every rail- road company north and south of Kentucky should raise its voice in one loud and re-echoing cry to sustain and encourage Congress to speed- ily grant it." 16 Cincinnati entered into the fight with all her power. She believed that final victory was now near: "Congress, at least, will not make us suffer for our loyalty in the past-will not, in such an utterly unpolitical matter, allow a faction to tear open old prejudices and parade them against us."17 The Board of Trade, the city alder- man and councilman, and the Chamber of Commerce, united their ac- tivities in sending men to Washington to lobby for the bill.18
But enthusiasm for congressional meddling in state affairs was not found everywhere. Outside of the Central Kentucky enthusiasts, Ken- tucky received news of this latest move, with an outburst of surprise and indignation.19 The opponents of the railroad had not thought it possible for the Central Kentuckians to be so wrought up as to forget the cardinal doctrines of true Kentuckians. The feeling of the state as a whole was traditionally and unalterably against Federal control of state destinies. She had laid most of her woes since the war at the door of Federal officials. This apparent treason of part of her people was bitterly attacked. The Kentucky House on February 11 instructed the Kentucky members of Congress to vote against the bill and to work for its defeat.20 James B. Beck, who represented the Lexington dis- trict, on being petitioned by his constituency to vote for the bill, was caught between two fires. If he voted against the bill he was not truly representing his constituency; if he voted for the bill he went against the instructions of the Kentucky Legislature and at the same time aban- doned the doctrine that a state has the right to manage its own internal affairs. He squared himself with his conscience and with the whole situation by offering to resign.21 However, he was in favor of the road, if obtained by the proper method : namely, in the Kentucky Legis- lature. When Cincinnati had first appeared before the Kentucky Leg- islature he had counselled compliance with her wishes, for fear of congressional interference if an opposite course were pursued.22
11 Ibid., Feb. 11, 12, 23.
12 Ibid., Feb. 17.
13 American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events, 1871, 432; Ferguson, Founding of the Cincinnati Southern Railway, 36, 37.
14 Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 12, 16, 1871.
15 Ibid., Feb. 27.
16 Quoted in Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 17, 1871.
17 Ibid., Feb. 15.
18 Ibid., Feb. 12. The municipal government paid $253.90 for lobbying in Wash- ington, apart from the amount spent by the trustees of the railroad. Annual Report of the City Departments of the City of Cincinnati for the Year Ending February 29, 1872, 123.
19 American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events, 1871, 431. 20 Ibid., 431, 432.
21 American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events, 1871, 431. 22 Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 9, 1871.
977
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
But Cincinnati received the brunt of the attacks for introducing a bill which extended "the corporate limits of Cincinnati to Chattanooga through Kentucky and Tennessee.23 Garrett Davis too well understood that this bill had not originated "with Congress or the executive Gov- ernment of the United States, but with some fruitful or diseased im- agination of Cincinnati." 24 The Louisville rivals professed to see Cin- cinnati in a hopeless condition and this her last desperate move. . \ writer to the Cincinnati Commercial says, "Poor Cincinnati! Attenu- ated Queen of the West! Dethroned, debased, neglected, she threatens shortly to commit suicide by taking the Southern Railroad Bill to Con- gress. Who would place any confidence in a dying town, which, after organizing an infamous bill, would strive to impose it upon a neighboring and friendly State by bribery and poisonous whisky, and failing in that would strive to prevail upon the Government of a free country to en- slave a whole State for the benefit of that same dying town ?" 25
But there was also sympathy for Kentucky outside her own borders. Unexpected support came from the very heart of the enemy's territory. There was introduced in the Ohio Senate on the 15th of February a series of resolutions condemning the efforts being made to have Con- gress force a railroad on Kentucky as subversive of state sovereignty and "in direct defiance of the reserved rights of the states." It was resolved, "That any persistent effort to pass said bill deserves the re- buke of the people of this State, and of all good citizens of the United States who love the Union and hope for its prosperity." 26 This was not the case of a sporadic outbreak accompanied by no considerable opinion. The report of the Committee on Federal Relations for the indefinite postponement of the resolutions was adopted by a majority of only one vote.27
But the bill was receiving strong support in the National House of Representatives. James A. Garfield, then a member of that body, de- clared, "That great Northwest will have the right of way across the State of Kentucky. If it does not get it we appeal to the nation." 28 Under the suspension of the rules the bill was advanced with the Ken- tucky representatives contesting every step, and a vote was reached on February 28 (1871), resulting in its passage by a large majority.29 On the same day the Kentucky Legislature passed a joint resolution protesting against this congressional meddling.30 After the passage of the bill, James M. Beck asked if an amendment to the title were in order. He was told that it could not be changed. He replied, "It should be a bill 'to extend the corporate powers of Cincinnati over Kentucky and Tennessee.' " 31
The bill which had been introduced in the Senate had a different fate. Both of these bills had shown by their wording evidences of a guilty conscience and a feeling of insecurity on the part of the framers. They were drawn up with the full knowledge that a bold stroke was being taken against the rights of a self-governing community. An at- tempt was, therefore, made to meet the expected hostility of Ken- tucky and to safeguard in every conceivable contingency the rights of the railroad. It was specifically provided that cases against the rail-
23 Congressional Globe, Part 3, 41 Cong., 3 Sess., 1759.
24 Ibid., Appendix, 42 Cong., I Sess., 9.
20 Feb. 12, 1871.
26 The Journal of the Senate of the State of Ohio for the Adjourned Session of the Fifty-Ninth General Assembly, Commencing on Tuesday, January 3, 1871 (Columbus, 1871), 196, 197; Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 16, 1871.
27 Ibid., 336, 337, 627, 628.
28 Congressional Globe, Part 3, 41 Cong., 3 Sess., 1759.
29 Ibid., 1761, 1784.
30 Cincinnati Commercial, March 1, 1871.
31 Congressional Globe, Part 3, 41 Cong., 3 Sess., 1761.
978
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
road could be removed to the Federal courts. Remedies were included against the forcible destruction of property or interference with the running of trains, or with the construction of the road. In order to leave no loop-hole in the interpretation of terms, words and phrases like "land" and "line of railway and its appendages" were minutely. defined.32
Immediately upon the introduction of the bill in the Senate, it met with the most persistent opposition of Garrett Davis. He contested every move and exhausted every parliamentary method in holding it up. Without any apparent reason, he many times objected to taking the bill up for consideration. He attempted first to have it referred to the Judiciary Committee for a determination of its legal aspects. After a strong fight it was referred to the Committee on Commerce, as the ordinary course for bills concerning commerce.33 The main purpose of Davis in opposing the bill at every possible opportunity was to delay it until the session should automatically end on the com- ing March 4. He asked Sherman not to attempt to force it through during this session, threatening to talk it to death if such a move were begun.34
A new session of Congress was called immediately on the expira- tion of the old, and on the 7th of March, Sherman introduced his rail- road bill again. Davis was ready with his old tactics of obstruction. He fought again to have it referred to the Judiciary Committee but without success.35 Two days later when Sherman called up the bill for its second reading, Davis objected, charging that an attempt was being made to rush it through without sufficient discussion. To this Sherman replied, "I do not intend to press the bill beyond the ordinary parliamentary rules." 36 Strangely enough he was accused by the Cin- cinnati Enquirer of letting the bill lag. This paper claimed that it would have passed in the previous session "if it had not, unfortunately, hap- pened that Senator Sherman had no direct pecuniary interest in it. In these days, and with such Congresses, it takes grease to oil the wheels of legislation." 37 Sherman replied to this accusation: "I intend, in the interests of the City of Cincinnati and of the whole country, to press the Southern Railroad bill, and to secure its passage as soon as possible, but it is rather poor encouragement to reach such libels in a prominent paper in your city." 38 Davis made his principal speech
against the bill on March 13. After explaining at length that the measure was unconstitutional, he launched upon an attack against Cin- cinnati. He said there were already five charters granted by Kentucky to build railroads across the state to run from Covington-as close to Cincinnati as Kentucky territory extended. He invited Cincinnati to subscribe to any one of these and her aid would be greatly appreciated. He continued: "If Congress thinks a railroad ought to be constructed from Cincinnati across her territory Kentucky would hail with joy the
82 Congressional Globe, Part 3, 41 Cong., 3 Sess., 1760, 1761. This was the provision on taxation : " . .. and no tax or transit duty shall be imposed by virtue of any state authority upon the traffic of said company, its freight or passengers, and no property tax shall be levied on the property of said road at a higher rate pro rata than is levied by the laws of said State upon the property of all other roads constructed in said State under the laws thereof." Sec. 11 in Ibid.
33 Ibid., Part I, 42 Cong., 1 Sess., 16, 23, 73, 74; Ibid., Part 2, 41 Cong., 3 Sess., 1459; Ibid., Part 3, 1813.
34 Ibid., 1720; Cincinnati Commercial, March 1-4, 1871.
35 Ibid., Part 1, 42 Cong., 1 Sess., 16, 73, 74.
36 Congressional Globe, Part I, 42 Cong., 1 Sess., 22, 73; Ibid., Part 3, 1863; Cincinnati Commercial, March 14, 1871.
87 John Sherman's Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet (New York, 1895), Vol. I, 475. 38 Ibid., 475, 476.
979
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
subscription by the Government of millions, to the stock of any of the numerous companies she has incorporated to make such a road * * * Let the mastery over my gallant State be still held by the United States and its Congress, under the Constitution, and not be transferred to Ohio and her corporation." 39 The extra session ended on April 20th without action being taken by the Senate. The center of interest and agitation now shifted back to Kentucky.
In their haste to take the railroad bill to Congress, the supporters of the road had not forgone the occasion of giving vent to their fresh anger. A news dispatch says, "It is impossible to describe the indig- nation and hatred of the people of Central Kentucky over the action of the twin-monopolies that have headquarters at the falls of the Ohio." 40 The mayor of Cincinnati saw base ingratitude on the part of the Ken- tucky Legislature. In his annual message he said, "I venture to assert that a similar instance of good will toward the people and interests of another State cannot be found on the records of our country; and yet, that good-will has been twice rudely and insultingly repulsed by the law-making power of Kentucky!" He continued, "The people, not only of Kentucky, but of the whole South, through which our con- templated road is intended to pass, will rise up in judgment upon the 'dog-in-the-manger' policy of the Kentucky Legislature, and sweep away all opposition to this great and much needed artery of trade and com- merce." 41 He had upon the first defeat of the bill urged Cincinnati to begin building the road in Tennessee where the right-of-way had already been obtained.42
But many people in Cincinnati were beginning to grow weary of successive defeats. Their former ardor had had ample time and occasion to cool off during this period of reverses. Many began to wonder if the railway was really worth the price. The editor of the Cincinnati Commercial said, "It is about time Cincinnati ceased to stand at the door of the Kentucky Legislature, or that of any other State, hat in hand, asking for the privileges of spending her millions in the construc- tion of roads through their territory." 43 There had been strong op- position in the city from the very beginning against embarking on such a project. The plan was urged, again, of amending the Ohio Con- stitution to allow the city to aid a corporation, or to have a law passed permitting the city to give a bonus to any individual or corporation that would construct the road within a specified time.44 The attempt to have Congress force the Cincinnati plan down the throat of Ken- tucky was depreciated. Ohio would surely resent such treatment, if attempted upon herself. The cost of such a road was looming up large. Many Cincinnatians, including competent engineers, believed the road would cost anywhere from $15,000,000 to $40,000,000.45 But the Cin- cinnati Scmi-Weekly Gazette declared "the people may rest assured that if the Southern Railroad is to cost over 12 millions of dollars, the trus- tees will never build it *** 46 But the discordant element suc- ceeded in winning the ear of the Board of Alderman and having it pass a resolution, "That the Legislature be, and is hereby requested to repeal
39 Congressional Globe, Part 2, and Appendix, 42 Cong., I Sess., 5-10.
40 Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 8, 1871.
41 Annual Reports of the City Departments of the City of Cincinnati for the Ycar Ending February 28, 1871, 17.
42 Annual Reports of the City Departments of the City of Cincinnati for the Year Ending February 28, 1870, 8, 9. 43 Feb. 9, 1871.
44 Cincinnati Semi-Weckly Gazette, Jan. 16, 1872; Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 15, 19, 1871.
45 Ibid., Feb. 15; Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette, Jan. 9, 1872.
46 Jan. 9, 1872.
980
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
the said railway law at the earliest practicable moment." 47 This was a dark period for the road. Also, the opponents of the city plan ap- pealed from the decision of the Cincinnati Superior Court, which had declared the railroad law constitutional, and the case was now sent up to the Ohio Supreme Court for a final decision.48 Still, others fought the plan of the Cincinnati Southern Railroad by advocating a road pre- viously suggested to run north of the Ohio to Rockport, Indiana, there to connect with the southern roads through Kentucky, as affording in a measure the advantages to be derived from the construction of the Cincinnati Southern road without its high costs.43
The staunch supports of the direct southern connection never lost hope despite the dissensions at home and reverses outside. They had one more card to play. In the autumn of 1871 a new governor and Legislature were to be elected in Kentucky. The Cincinnati mayor had said after the first defeat, "It is believed that a new legislature, chosen at an election in which this question will be prominently before the people, can be relied upon to grant the privilege of building the road." 50 The people of Central Kentucky believed likewise, and de- termined to make the granting of this road an issue in the coming cam- paign. This was very disconcerting to the Kentucky democracy, the machinery of that party being largely controlled by the men who opposed the railway. They feared the issue might cause dissentions within the ranks. But Central Kentucky was determined to make this election serve her purpose for getting the railroad. While she was reluctant to break with the democratic party, she had concluded to exact a price with this very club.51 The Woodford Weekly said, "A few more such legislatures will be too much, even for that grand old party to stand -strong as it is in principle and justice. May it never be inflicted again with such an incubus as that legislature has been upon it." 52 The democratic convention met in Frankfort in early May. The regular candidate for governor was Preston H. Leslie, who had been an enemy at all times of Cincinnati's plan for a railway. He was early accused of being the candidate of Louisville and of the Louisville and Nash- ville Railroad. Central Kentucky wanted Judge Hawes, a friend of the road. Leslie was nominated; but the Central Kentuckians were placated by receiving the lieutenant-governorship in the person of John G. Carlisle.53 The platform remained silent on the question of the Cin- cinnati Southern Railroad.
Cincinnati was not exactly pleased with the attitude the democratic convention had taken on this issue. So, she decided to work for the defeat of the democratic party in Central Kentucky. The Cincinnatians, thereupon, advised the Kentuckians to vote against the democratic nom- inees, if they wanted the railroad. The republican party, which had never made a respectable showing in Kentucky, immediately took heart. They believed that this situation gave them a chance to drive a wedge into their opponents. In their convention, which met in Frankfort on May 16, they gave conspicuous endorsement in their platform to the Cincinnati Southern Railroad bill.34 In the campaign that followed, they tried to make full use of this issue on every occasion. But in the
47 Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette, Jan. 9, 1872.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.