, 1874-06-07
OH GbmaDn 03ibune.
Sunday Morning. June Z, 1874.
THE HhmWAY-PROBLEM.

THE E9sLWAY-PROBLEM.
What shall be done with tho 1allroads! Ihi
Is one OF the great questions OF the present day
It will be also one Of the great questions OF TIL
future. Next to that OF .he currency, it is tn
greatest and most important that can engage tn
attention OF tie people.
Railway companies cannot be left entirely t.
their own deyicee. No one who has looked int
their history, their nature, and their operation
will say that they can. Publicisss like the
author of Ral1cay Reform in England, ant
political economists like Vou Mohl, Rau, knies
III Wagner in Germany. say that Govern
must have something to do with them.
lr:A.tical and eminent railway engineers like
Stephenson have told US that railways are, in
their yery nature, monopolies, and that. since
coalition is possible among them, competition is,
i. tho long run, impossible Learned lawyers
ard able iurists like Chief Justice Rod6eld, of
Vermont, WHO have made the legal aspect Of our
railway system atudy, are unanimous that
something must be done by the Government to
regulate them. The farmers, especially IN the
West, have only too many reasons to agree with
tie publicsts, political economists, the practical
engineers, and the Judges, who have each, from
their own standpoint. made railways subject
OF thought. The whole people of the United
States. in fact demand that something shall be
done by tho Government, State or National,
or State and National, to give the country All ef-
Gcent aud c. eamo time equitable railway
system That something must be done in the
vay OF railway legislation is therefore certain.
N.ha: that something shall be is another matter.
Regulated by the Government the railways must
bc.-tut low, and to WIN. extent: Shall the
Govern nent build, own, aud operate all new
roads. Shall it compel tie railway CON-
ran:cs to sell all existing roads, or such
of them as enjoy a complete monopoly Of
the traffic between certain points, to the
State, to be owned and operated by the
State? Or shall it allow the companies to retain
their franchises and their property IN the roads
end material, while the State reserves to itself
the right to regulate their tariffs and prescribe
euch rules for the1r management as the interests
Cl TUG puGlc lnay IeCuIc.
The question whether the roads should belong
to the State or not has been frequently agitated
IL Europe. In parts of Europe. Belgium for in-
stance, the Government actually does own and
form advocated tho purchase Of the roads
by the Government in England. State
roads have cartain advantages over pri-
vate roads, aud private roads in turn arc in
Eome respects, to be preferred to State roads.
Which should be preferred in any given country
or at any given time il a question to be deter
mined By the circumstances OF each case. No
genera! rule can DO laid down on this point.
There is this to be said against roads owned By
private individuals. or by roads owned by ttock
con,panies-and il is the principal objection to
them in this country-that they are run
1naiuly in the interests of the few, not
Of the public, OF of commerce, nor
with . view to the development of
the resources OF the country, industrial or other
They are operated in such manner as to insure
70 the stockholders maximum of net profit.
Tie policy Of the stockholders in running tho
roads is dictated by what is best for themselves,
as matter of course, not By what is best for
tue public or for general business; and the in-
tions are far from being always at one with
those Of the general public. Moreover, it is eaid
private r,ejs are Eot apt to be as well built as
Government roads. The individuals VINO con-
st1uct them frequently put poor material into
them, in order to reap the greatest possible profit
from The smallest possible outlay As a result,
we are told that in Europe, where both Systems
are in operation eide by side, accidents arc moro
frequent on the roads built BY private corpora
lions than on those built by the State. The
rates on the private roads in England arc threo
time as high rs On the State roads in Belgium.
In the case OF private roads, all the net profit
gees into :he pockets Of the stockholders, what
ever it may be. On tho other hand, when the
State owns and operates the roads, an increase
in the net profits gees either to the tightening of
tsxauon in general, to the improvement of tho
roads, to tie dn1inution Of the rates Of fare and
freight charged On the road itself, or to the
buildn. of other roads.
Besides, number Of individual companies,
acting independently Of one another, cannot give
the country as complete and harmonious = sys-
tenn Of roads as the State, carrying out one plan,
can. network Of roads built by individuals
will always be defective there will always be-
breaks and defects in it. The system will not be
prosecuted regularly and uninteruptedly. Only in
times OF speculation will roads be bni1t and than
only when they promise extraordinary nrosta
The tariff Of private roads is not 50 cssi1v r.cn.
lated as those managed by Government. Tna
rates seldom reduced as early As they might b.
There is nothing to compelthe managers to reduce
then and their cupidity is always present to
keep them up. These drawbacks are not found
in the State system Of roads. All the roads
being consolidated into one, can be operated