The Wichita daily eagle., 1891-10-03
A CRITICISM CRITICISED.
To the Editor OF the Eagle.

To the Editor OF the Eagle.
AS one of the four defendants of the
question "Resolved that the Government
Should Own and Control the Railroads,
desire to reply to the structures in ga
Criticism" in the EAGLE Goth ult.) by
Isa Snow. The criticism is an unfair
one, and while if carefully read might
be its own refutation, yet, for fear the
outside public might think these debators
were really so ignorant that they were
all for the affirmative without knowing
it, or that the audience was SO dumb
that it could be misled quite unani-
mously) by arguments which were all
for the affirmative while offered for the
negative, I venture to critise this critic.
To one fair land this refers to features,
not to logic will say that we are, not
withstanding your criticism, ignorant of
arguing for the affirmative and that you
have given US no light by your pub
lished remarks. You say we persisted
in holding the view that the affirmative
wanted the power of controlling the rail-
roads taken from the people, and be-
cause, as you assert, the railroads are
now controlled by few persons, there
fore our argument was for the affirma-
tive. If the negative used such stuff
for argument they are certainly
guilty Of ignorance and false pre-
tense. You must be in error.
Again you, charge the negative with
saying that the state already controls the
the railroads by compelling the railroads
to carry the mails. Absurd you say,
mails are carried by contract, absurd say
|. However you fail TO understand the
force of rather immaterial point made
by one of the debaters for the negative.
Think over this once more.
Our critic deals in airy nothings, and
proves herself a sentimentalist in politics
being carried away by such terms as
government sovereign people" ICON
stitution" Declaration of independence
ga government of the people for the peo-
pie and by the people" and
the like without any comprehension
of their meaning. She wanders
away from The subject if she had any
to make fling at Ingalls, and George
III; praises everything as safe in the
hands of the American people (railroad
question exceptedD, and then says:
They who regard kingdom as being
so much better than a free government
had better go where a king is loved
more than he is IN America" What a
flight, and whitherward?
But she says our government is sup
posed, at least, to be the people, and
since the railroad power is in the hands
of very few the change would simply
take it from them (few} and give
it to the sovereign, ''the people to whom
it rightfully belongs" II may be said of
many enterprises which fare managed in
the interest of few and against the in
terest of the many, why not give them
also into the hands of the sovereign, the
people, where they rightfully belong?
How rightfully belong? Is it the true
purpose of the government to own and
control every enterprise that few may
manage against the interest of the many?
The position of the negative was this:
The affirmative must show, to make out
a prima facie case:
/. That the ownership and operation
of railroads is properly within the func-
ton of our government.
9. That it would be expedient, prac-
ticable and conserve the public welfare
Illak tii6 IdllIOdAS SlOAlO 10 ONnCO anu
controlled by the state, and unless these
propositions could be successfully
affirmed the state would not be war.
ranted in acquiring the ownership and
assuming the control of what is now uni
versally admitted to be private property.
The negative conceded the right of
state control of railways, to regulate
the abuses and determinations COM
planned of by the affirmative and insisted
that this regulation might substantially
cure existing evils.
The negative also contended that state
ownership and control of railroads in
volved a very dangerous Capitalization
of power In the government, and
by reason of the patronage grow
ing out of such control could
perpetuate its power indefinitely:
that such contract by the state would be
impractiCable from an economical stand
point, citing the local control of the Dis
trict of Columbia to prove the delusion
of the expectation that state ownership
of railroads would give transportation at
cost of production; that the state could
find no warrant IN the constitution for
engaging in the railroad business; that
the state was not able to buy and assume
the Indebtedness OF railroads even if it
desired 10 do so: that such vast interest
in the government would lead to more
Jobs and corrupt legislation than had
ever before been dreamed Of.
That government which governs least
consistent with social order Is best.
That government which torches the citi-
zen With restriction IN fewest places and
leaves him the largest individual liberty
is the most approved. Government pro-
tects the individual IN person and prop
erty. and lis mission beyond this is an
emergency. Government ownership Of
railroads Is but one of the many Indica-
tions OF parernalism IN government,
teaching thsCitizen 10 appeal 70 the state
for ala instead OF relying on himself. ltI
false in theory aud could only be disas-
trous in practice.
One OF THE DCs NTERS.