, 1873-03-11

In anothor part Of tho present issue Of The
Tribune will bo found copious extracts from
two apoochaa made BY hIr. Charles Francis
Adams, Jr., and Mr. Edward Atkinson, before
the Massachusetts Legislature, rolativo to State
ownership Of railroad lines. Mr.. Adams repro
Hontod' tho Massachusetts Board Of Railroad
Commissioners, and, in urging tho purchase Of
tho Fitohburg Vermont l. Massachusetts aud
tho Massachusetts Central Roads, submitted u
n..~~~t ~-o..,-cant. In f~.r~ @-s> s"AaainniG..
A1r. Atlinaon represented remonatranco Of
citizons to this project. and presented counter
argument against State ownership. Both al-
drossea arc careful and elaborate reviews of tho
gonora1 question, aud, as such, arc entitled to
special attention at this time.
Mr. Adams has modelled his idea Of tho State
owncrship OF railroads on the system now in
vogue in Belgium, undor which tho State owns
portion Of the railr Dads, leaving tho ronainaor
in the hands Of private capital. BY this moana
he claims that tho State virtually controls tho
entire railroad system Of the country in the in
forest Of lts citizens. This, he says, may be ac-
oomplished In this country by the State owner
ship Of main or TRUNK line, whose ratoH will
practically determine tho rates Of nil other 1nes
It is not by competition alone TINT such result
will bo brought about; but a. demonstration tint
State can run l. railroad and mako 1t reasona-
tho private corporations to yield to tho
demands OF tho people that tloy shall
do the aamo. He moota tho charge that
the State ownership Of railroads would generate
political corruption in two ways: First, ho says
that " tho away Of tho railroad man and tho
lobbyist Is notorious in half tho Legislatures Of
tho country, and maintains that mono Of tho
doyices Of political corruption could equal tho
present system of railroad supervision aud rog,1-
1htton, under which ono man suporviHoa and
regulates tho property Of anothor. In tho second
place, he makoa distinction between tho SUBJ
sidizing and tho owning Of railroads. Tho op-
portunitiea for corruption In tho former plan
hayo boon abunduntly demonstrated, not only in
tho Credit Mobilier transactions, but in tho caao
of overy' State. and evory county, and every
railroad enterprises to be used and manipu-
latod as private interests may suggest Ho holds
that such opportunities would not present them
selves whoro the State actually owned a railroad
and managed 1t. To illustrate this point 10
compares tho postal system and the Union Pa
oifio Railroad. In tho ono case there is absolute
ownership and control In tho hands Of tho Gov
ornmont, and no general corruption has oyor
been urged against 1t. In tho otlor, thoro was
simply reserved right Of supervision, which
was grossly abused by tho mon whom tito Coy
ernmeht thuB aet up In business. Ho cites tho
rospeotivo conditions OF wator-works owned and
controlled by city governments, and tho gas
works. which oltes merely koop undcr general
supervision, as caaos In point. In ono word, lso
vigorously opposes the policy Of aubnidizing as
advocates tho policy Of aotual ownership
by tho e}tato Of part Of. tho railway
systom az a moans by which combtna-
tlona 1aay bo prevented, tariffs regulated, and
railways managed in tho intoraasa at the Yooplo
without tho sacrifice Of moneY. In answor to
the suggestion that tho ownership Of 400 Or 800
miles within the State could not overcome the
presont ovila Of transportation, Ao lolds that
the State corporation may extend lta control by
means ot loaaes through Trustees, luat al tho
Pennsylvania Company 1lad oxtondod lta Jurls-
dlctlon, though it's charter limits ita powers to-
tho domain Of tho State Of pennsylyania. Urdk
should this State Investment prove to he un >
profitable nud become = tar On tho people z
Than aava Mr. Af1ama tha 8fn IN ror IA r,,ro4 L..