, 1873-03-11
State Ownership as a Method Of
Regulating Charges.
Discussion in the Massachu-
setts Legislature.
Argument Of Charles Francis Adams, Jr.,
for State Ownership.
Counter-Argumcnt of Edward
Atkinson.

We ropublah from the arguments before tho
Railroad Committee Of tho Massachusetts Logis-
latu1e, the following extracts from tho argu-
monts Of Charles Francis Adams, Jr., and Ed
ward Atkinson, Esq., on the subject Of State
ownership Of railways:
Extracts from The Argument OF Churlcs
Frnncis Adams, Jr.
WHAT IS srArE OWNERSHIP?
But 1t tho regulation of railways, which all
ngree to be neconsary. cannot be accomplished
How haa It boon accomplished elsewhere Il
has boon accomplished by what Ia known rs tho
stato ownership Of railways; But what IL this
st9tq @ oMnersh! o q Ct railways! Tho general idoa,
minds Of gentlemen who como up horo day after
day, is that tho Government ia to own railroads
~ and to run them as 1t does tho postal, syatom;
that Is to sa syoty aroaa in te
into the railroad business in full tilt. In other
words, the subject Of State ownership Of rail
ronds ia not at all understood. Pooplo talk very
loarnodly about It, without my knowledge Of IT..
90 far as know, no government ever has,
and venture the opinion il,at no government
oTor will, own all tho railroads subject to Its ju-
In tho first place, 1t is mpraeticablc; in the
second place, it lH both unnecessary and unadvisa-
blo., Lot mo rotor to tue Belgian aystom, which
is tho & one f. mnst i commonly discussed Tho es.
exclusive state Of ownership, but IN competitions
arising from mixed ownership, part public md
part private. Tho Belgian system, therefore,
: far mora Important part iu that systom than
in oar own. Tho State railroads md the private
railroads y work 1ncesaantly side by aldo: Tho 70;
nt Is hn th9 ono the other Pure ma
put It. They aro now discussing in belgium tho
expedioncy Of tho State assuming oil the rnil-
roads. venture tho opinion That it this is
done they will find that, thoy have deatroyod
that to which hitherto they have owed
their SUCCESS. Thoy will lavo eliminated
that eloment Of competition which it should
bo their great aim 1ealously to preserve.
ngenent lies, not in the ownership Of all tho
railroads by tho Government but In tho control
and regulation of the whole, through tho owner-
ship and management Of q part. Upon this
too strong an emphasis. In these fow words
are included the whole theory Of State owner
ship, which I am instructed to urge upon you.
And With this statement come back to my
rule. The admitted general principle is That
tho Government should have no connection with
industrial undertakings. II have established
M exception to that rule, aa regards some degrco
Of supervision and regulation to DO exercised In
the case Of railroads. then, tho exception being
conceded, We must also add that in thla case tho
least degree Of interference ahan ho exercised
which shall bo sufficient to secure tho desired
result. 10 this part Of tho odlscugston shall
hereafter roour. -
rtE onx or CORRUPTION.
/ But tho momont 1t il proposed that tho Gov
railroad system, We are met at the threshold
claim, 1850 what our Government bureaus arss
You will introduce into our politics larger OLE
Slate Government, instead Of owning tho rail-
road, will DO but htopping-stone to tho posses-
sion Of the road" 7 do not wish to depreciato
this danger. The "Bpoils" system, as It now
7
enough aud should be 10TH to Do anything cnl-
cu1ated to increase it, But would thiB measure
increase it7 Let us SEQ.
THE PRESENT sYsTEM THE MOST coanuPTINa.
I do not hesltato to maintain TINT oil OF tho
devices for Introducing corruption into politics
and the Government which could emanato from
tho unconscious ingenuity Of the most stupid
Legislator, not one could bo found equal to tho
existing 6yBtom Of railroad supervision and rog-
ulation. Upon what does that syetom dopend7
It depends upon this, that ono man ia to rcgu-
late and supervise tho property Of another. 1a
it consistent with ideas OF common sense, ID it
man who owns will not do his host to control tho
man who regulates? ? We know perfectly well
how rapidly the movement in this direction il
now going On: Tho sway Of tho railroad II mel men
lures Of the country. And why arc thoy there ;
They are thoro because your false system Of leg
islat1on has effected a separation between tho
ownership Of y thing and its regulation, and 10
who OWNS tho thing knows lie must also own
tho Legislature which regulates tho thing. And
just Sc long Us you pursue this false sytem un-
der correct principles, lust 80 long as you do
ceiyo yourselves with tho idea thas yon are not
bost to reduce meddfiug to u syatem,--1uat 10
long ~ you make one man own thing and
empower another to regulate the value out Of it,
s sp 10 9 sss'' xnd hs t5Pnans Pess
in this direction is no loss rapid than it is alarm
ing All over the country,-moro elsewhere
than in. Massachusetts, ,-we see Legislatures year
Ss an es ., boa
Of general railroad directors. And By tho term
irresponslbloI moan not nmenable to that cau-
ton which is inseparablo from ownership. In
the seo 4 nos 9no1s this s Posoh st is
it caunot but result in conflict OF Interest, and
IN grave public and private disaster; that it
"in aosuit in abuses and scandals and corrup-
tions in comparison with which those which
haye hitherto startled and shocked us will DO
but as the duat in tho balance.
THE CREDIT MouILIEn EXAMPLE.
But It. would % ID b 10 me; mere waste Of time to Cite
recent history Of State legislation. They arc
| only too notoriouB,-not, perhaps, in Massachu-
Betts, but not far from her borders. Lot us go
at once to high PLACES ;lot us glance at that na-
1noat in all minds. Let us aee what tho principle
Of supervision and regulation, unaccompanied
by ownership leads to at Washington. Who
owns tho Pacific lsailroad9 It waB not built by
West Point ongineers, lit was indeed paid for
out Of the National Troasury, hut not directly
1t ia not owned by the United States. No lii 1t
WAS, the road would have been built much bot
ter, and for half its cost. Az tho country haa
good cAuse to know, it was built by au institu-
tion known aa tho Credit Mobilier. Tho Credit
Mobilior owned tho property, but Congress re-
eerved a power to auporyiBo and regulate it.
What was tho reault7 Dills wero introduced into
Congroaa to regulate the ratios OF transportation
over tue limo, and to theso, those who owned it
III They did not brlbo-oh nol-but they pro-
| ceeded to "plnco the stock wlero it would do
| tho most good" for thoy "wanted more friends
| in Oongross." The record shows whether or no
ta III
per thorcafer in public life. And all this roBult-
ed because tho Government would not own md
would modllo. They would bring two grcnt
principles into conillot,-the principle OF owner