The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1896-10-01
GOVERNMENT
OWNERSHIP
Of Railroads The Objections
Against it is the Cost and In
crease Of the Public Debt.
COST OF THE RAILROADS.

Since the adJournmento OF the Pop |
Mist convention, and the adoption
~, that colyeatlon of n plank IA
.r,gg The government ownership of |
..ijroads. there has appeared in the
g,or0pollstG press much unreason-
able comment on this score. We |
| have seen those who believe that the |
government should own and oper- |
a,e our railroad systems in the IN
terest of the whole people, called |
demagogues and robbers. We have
even seen those who advocated this
socialistic step, believing that in no
other way can unjust determinations
between persons and places in the |
matter of transportation rates be
prevented, held up to scorn as an
archlsts.
Those who so loudly, but withal so
Ienorantly, deprecate tho govern
meut ownership of railroads, would
do well to fix their attention for few
minutes on the report of the Com
'mlttoe on Government Ownership,
Control and Regulation Of Railways,
made to the National Convention of
Railroad Commissioners, held at the
Office Of the Interstate Commerce
Commission at Washington on May
lgth and 10th last. On this com
mittee, which was appointed by au-
thority of the convention held the
year previously, served, Hon. A. X.
Telsberg of Minnesota, Isaac b.
Brown of Pennsylvania, 5. Ohio Will
sou of North Carolina, j. G.. Allen
of Nebraska, and Olin Merrill of
Vermont. Two reports were sub
mittod to the convention, q minor
ity report by Mr.. Wilson of North
Carolina taking decided ground in
favor or government ownership,
and the report of the ajority, which
was somewhat tentative and apollo
getic, the members OF the majority
recognizing the evils of over capital
i2ation and arbitrary discrimination
in the matter OF rates, recognizing
government ownership not only as q
feasible, but pephaps the only possi-
bio remedy, and yet hesitating to
advocate such ownership.
But the fact that the majority of
the committee were evidently preju-
diced against government owner
ship gives their report even more
weight than it would otherwise ear
\ ry. listen, in part, to what they
mad TO say:
,N "That the government has the
NJ right to acquire the railroads of this
country by purchase, at a fair valu-
alton, no one will dispute.
at is only question of expediency
aud policy. In a Republican form
OF government such as ours, it is
not oxpedient nor good policy to in
wade or appropriate fields of indus
try for the simple gains that might
be IN it.
"Our government has assumed
control over the waterways of the
country for the benefit of all the peO-
pie; large sums of public money are
annually expended to maintain the
usefulness Of such waterways, in
the interest of commerce, but the
government does not build vessels
to enter into competition with its
citizens in the carrying trade. Ii
railroads could be used in the same
manner as are the waterways, there
would be no question, perhaps, that
the government would have exer-
clSed the same control over them q.
it has over waterways; but from the
nature of railroad business this il
not practicable. Hence, if the gov
eminent should assume the owner
ship of railroads, it would necessari
Iy also have to own and operate tn,
equipments; in other words, do tht
whole railroad business.
while it may be true that som,
OF our people desire government
ownership of railroads for the money
they believe there is in it, it i
doubtless other and better reason
that influence the majority who ar,
in favor of this scheme.
lone of these better reasons i
aptly expressed in the last annua
report of one of the members of thi
committee-Mr.B Brown, of Pennsyl
vania-as follows: Our people hav
little to complain of from the CON
mon carriers, except on the questlo
of discrimination. Railway mans
gers must look to the interests ,
their corporations ON this subiec
if they would be true to the lnteres
of those they serve. Governmel
ownership of railroads Is a mo
questionable scheme, in q republ
at least, and yet if discrimination
ere to continue, if favoritism of sue
q character as to enrich some ar
ruin others is to be practiced, IL
transition period of railways to go
ernment control is not so remote ;
some imagine
"In the opinion Of this committe
the sentiment in favor of COVER
ment ownership of railroads is du
not only to the practices of discrim
nations between persons and place
but also to the over-capitalization
railroads, and the delay under o
present system as adjudicating co
troversies between the railroads al
their patrons.
Among the objections to COVER
ment ownership of railroads are Il
cost of them to the government, al
the consequent increase of the pu
II lie debt, and also that it would CT
ate vast field of political patro
age, and consequent corruption.
'As to the first objection, the CT
of the railroads, we believe this &c
" ernment is amply able to assu1
that burden. This government cot
borrow money cheaper than privs
individuals or corporations; but We
little money would, perhaps,
needed; the present owners wor
doubtless be glad to exchange tn
stocks and bonds for those of
United States, whereby they wol
be assured of fixed income.
TAIL to see in what respect the pub
would be saddled with any ad