The record-union., 1895-12-30
THE RAILROAD DEBT QUESTION.

A correspondent of the San Francisco
Chronicle" writing upon the subject
of the adjustment of the Pacific Rail-
road Indebtedness to the Federal Gov
eminent, very properly says that what
is now to be considered by those who
are dispassionate and just, is not the
personality of the railroad people, since
that is but temporary and subordinate
but the question what is the wise pol
icy for the Government to adopt in the
collection Of it's dues, and what relation
will be established by whatever ad-
Justmsnt is effected between the great
East and the people of this State?
AS the correspondent we'll says: 1--WE
should. therefore, look to the permanent
and not to the temporary consequences
of the policy to be inaugurated."
Taking up, after this preface, the
question of ownership Of the roads by
the Government, the writer Of the letter
comedies that hopes entertained by peo-
pie who favor ownership reside in the
belief that such Government owner
ship would be attended by a policy Of
operation that would be especially ia
voVable to the people of California Is
tksare, he asks. reasonable basis for the
entertainment of such a hope? An
swering his own question, he admits
that the ownership would be in the
whole people of the United States, and
necessarily they would adopt q policy
of operation tending to conserve their
interests, rather than those of a single
and sparsely settled and distant Sec
ton of the common country.
Congress would determine the rates
to apply for service by Government
owned roads, as a matter of course.
Schedules so established would be
framed upon a basis analogous. to the
adjustment of tariff rates upon imports
of foreign manufacturers. Such sehed-
ules would, therefore, reflect the rela-
ton only that exists between the Pa
cific States and the vast population
east of them, and not be based upon
any paternal prompting to give to US
protection against commercial competi-
tion Of the Eastern States with our
merchants, manufacturers and produc-
ers. That is to say. the management
of the roads under Government control
would respond TO the highest interests
of the owners, and these owners would
be the 65,0o0,000 of people east Of us,
rather than respond to the local and
specifically antagonizing interests of
the very small minority upon these
shores.
It is not, however, our purpose to fol-
low the correspondents argument
throughout and in detail, but we can
not pass the further point made, that
IL the Government takes the trunk line
which it is urged to operate and estab-
fishes, as it would of course, maxi
mum transportation tariff between the
Missouri River and San Francisco, the
interests Of all other transcontinental
lines and Of all local roads-which
would naturally become their allies
will be to prevent freights reaching the
Government terminal, San Francisco.
In other words, all commercial interests
would feel natural incentive to build
up other and competing terminals and
conserve other and competitive dis
tributing points on the north and the
south of the California metropolis.
It is not to be expected for moment
that the Government would enter into
pooling arrangements-it has estab-
hshed already a policy opposed to them
nor engage in favoritism for the most
distant point and at the expense of in
termediate points, or, for the matter
of that, against other Pacific terminals
and commercial ports.
Other considerations in the same line
are presented by the correspondent,
as. for instance, the relation of sea COM
petition to the proposed Government
ownership system, etc. But all these, as
well as the points made which we
have more definitely indicated, and
which the candid mind and unbiased
Judgment must concede to bestrong and
suggestive of profoundest involvement
of factors not considered by the dema-
gogue and the shrieker for Government
ownership-aii these, we say, may be
put wholly aside in view of the over
shadowing fact that the Government
will not take, own or operate these
roads, because wisdom advises against