I think the monopoly provision is a bit redundant. I don't think any competitors will exist because of the vast cause of making a competing line.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I agree with the Senator. We already provide a monopoly of sorts by providing the land in its convenience (whereas another party would be forced to buy up such land themselves). The land itself, together with the great benefit that a transcontinental railroad system would bring financially to its owners (with us just helping by providing the impetus and originating capital for the system, for the general welfare of the American people, the government, and the businessmen operating the line) there is no need for a separate legal monopoly. Let other railroads build, but they will not match the unbroken span of this railroad, and in that way threaten its profits, for quite awhile, simply due to the capital costs and organization of such a line.
I see you points.
What I intended was to strongly discourage any sort of competition during the early stages of operation, when there is a dire need for funds; to prevent the risk of having a couple of lines going nowhere instead of a single one fulfilling the task. I may have gone too far on the safe side of things... If Art 5 stays, then #3 may be pointless, provided that any other probable company won't have a similar mechanism of land grants.
What I intended was to strongly discourage any sort of competition during the early stages of operation, when there is a dire need for funds; to prevent the risk of having a couple of lines going nowhere instead of a single one fulfilling the task. I may have gone too far on the safe side of things... If Art 5 stays, then #3 may be pointless, provided that any other probable company won't have a similar mechanism of land grants.
And how will the land help the railroad's financial situation? Farm it to sell food? Build houses to rent? 
Sell the land after the tracks are laid. We are talking about 20,000 square miles or 13,000,000 acres (more or less) that today are worth zero, with a train passing by they would really worth something.
There are two possible paths to the west: through Idaho to Oregon and through Colorado to California. The second one is in the middle of a war zone right now, and its sparcly populated. There may be more people in the first one, but they are still territories, if I remember correctly; so there's not a lot of people living there either.
So, there is a very low density of population in both areas, which means a low land price and little owners; and most of the land is still State owned (and a big portion controlled by the Indians, actually).
If the line goes through private property, I supose that the owners would be forced to sell it, at a fair price of course. In the end, it would be a small fraction of the total cost
So, there is a very low density of population in both areas, which means a low land price and little owners; and most of the land is still State owned (and a big portion controlled by the Indians, actually).
If the line goes through private property, I supose that the owners would be forced to sell it, at a fair price of course. In the end, it would be a small fraction of the total cost
I don't think it's necessary to preempt existing settlers. There is a simply huge amount of federal land out there. The land grants can be limited to the federal lands. If recent experience in the eastern areas is any example, the railroads will be heavily compensated from local municipalities anyway if they chose to run through those areas. I can tell you gentlemen that the railway companies have earned a hefty profit from their venture of connecting the fair city of Baltimore with the Ohio valley. Getting them to build between existing settlements is the easy part, it's conquering the great western expanse that we must encourage. Grants from federal lands will do that because once those lands have a railway connecting them to both the east and west their values will rise immensely.
So, Congressman Arthur de Jong, let me get this straight. If the land is owned by the Indians, we are going to pay to send American soldiers to kill the aforementioned natives and drive them off the land. If it is owned by Americans we are going to force them to sell the land they live on and live off, making no profit, since, of course, we will buy it at a fair price, and sell it at one, unless you intend to force people to buy it too. To summarise, we are going spend American money and lives to drive the people who have been on this continent for thousands of years longer than us, force American people out of their homes to starve for no reason. For a railroad.
Fellow congressmen and senators, I object to taking the indians land has that would mean we would have to kill women and children which is highly barbaric for a great world power like us I would expect such actions from a nation like Sokoto or Zulu but not our own nation. I propose letting the indians keep the land and build it somewhere else where there are none or next to no indians living there. We cannot commit an act of mass-murder for a railroad!
Dr William La Follette
Dr William La Follette
Last edited:
Well it sounds good! I'll change it to mass murder happy now?((I don't think the word genocide exists at the moment
I was sure we had more votes, but my count says otherwise too. In any case it doesn't matter.
I am talking about building a railroad line here, Mr. Walsh, not talking about obliterating everything here to Oregon just because I felt like we need it. First of all, we don't even know through where the line will go, so we can only speculate on the potential impact, not even I know how much land we'll need to buy or how much the State owns at the moment.
I'm talking about buying the right-of-way from some scarce settlers, not to level entire cities; besides, many people will willingly sell their land in order to have the rail near them. Perhaps entire cities will compete to get the rail built near them, I'm already thinking of St. Louis and Chicago, for instance. And the land will be paid for, we're not condemning people to starvation. If you're so worried about these people, the bill could clarify that the land grant doesn't apply to previously private properties. But again, as we don't know where it will go through so we don't know how much people will be affected.
I'm talking about the security of American workers doing their job, not hunting down and killing every Indian that gets in our way. They've been wandering up and down those plains for who knows how long, I konw it. But, we must admit the idea that some may wish to attack the works, for profit, revenge or who knows what. I have no ill-will against them, I just don't want to send people to a potentially hostile environment without any protection.
I'm talking about setting a private company, not a public enterprise. If you read my proposal you'll see that almost every possible expenditure and debt the State may have shall be paid by the company in term. The State may loan up to certain amount, so it won't be a fiscal sink hole. If business go bad, the heaviest burden will be on the investors.
I'm talking about something more than a railroad. I'm talking about cutting the travel time from months to days, opening the vast interior for every man willing to go there and settle; I'm talking about the ability to swiftly move our troops from one place to another, securing our Country; I'm talking about finally uniting this Nation as one; I'm talking about securing prosperity for the years to come, as who knows what resources lay in those empty mountains. I'm talking about gambling a few dollars know, for unlimited gains tomorrow.
All that gentlemen, from a railroad.
It seems as if the majority of the Democrats have switched over to the Whigs, or just don't feel like we should switch presidents at this time.
Indeed, the very war that almost saw him lose the Whig Primary may well be securing Cameron a second term.
Indeed, the very war that almost saw him lose the Whig Primary may well be securing Cameron a second term.
Is he allowed to run again if he wins this election?