Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1898-01-26
CONVENIENT OWNERSHIP OF
 RAILROADS.

--------@-- -s 7---~----if
 RAILROADS.
 Government ownership of rail
 roads is one of the pet blanks of the
 Populist party. Demagogues, who
 know no more about T railroad than
 dog does of war, prate about the
 great benefits to be received by
 such an object. Some able and
 honest men entertain conscientious
 views in favor of it. The following
 On the subject, from President Rip
 ley, of the Santa Fe load, will be
 found particularly interesting, and
 at the same time very instructive.
 The point made by him iD reference
 to the danger to the government, on
 accl cunt of the immense increased
 patronage such a measure would
 give, has been repeatedly referred
 tO by the JOURNAL-MNER in dis
 cussing the question. A Kansas Populist paper recently published an artbie citing the number of pee pie killed by the railroads of the
 United States as @ reason why they should, be put under government control. 1t was in reply to this that President Ripley wrote letter, in which he points out the fact that
 'the railways carry the whole popu- la,iCn of Che state of Kansas two and a half times over before one passenger is killed; that last year the trains on the railways in Kansas Tan moye than S0O.OOO miles, yet only one employees life was sacra- feed for every 43l,000 miles. Of I.3O6 others killed in the United States in 1896, the reports show that 3,Sll were trespassers. He draws the conclusion that the plea of gov ernm snt ownership because of the number Of persons whom the rail ways kill is entirely worthless.
 Coming to the question of owner ship, he says tLa 70 himself and 1 other railway oflo is a matter of entire iudiIerel Next came 1 the question whether or not the | owners of railways are opposed to  government ownership, and he points out that the strongest plea made in behalf Of government ownership is that of T. B. Black stone, president of the Chicago & Alton road, who urged it as a meas ure of justice to the railway in vesters. There is no holder of rail way. securities, he said, who does not believe that those securities would advance in value If there were any prospect of the government buying them. MT. Ripley says that ; 1T he is opposed to government { ownership, it Is not as a railway man, but as a citizen. It Is easy to talk, be says, of the government giving better service, employing more men, lowering rates, and still making money.
 As a matter of fact, government of anything never was and never can be as economical as private management, and to earn ; .he interest on its investment J SIX to fifteen billions of dollarsl, l he government would have to in ' ,rease the rates for service, as has [ 1aen done on the government owned mes of Australia; cheapen the ser ' nee; employ fewer men, and let e aiugs generally get into disrepair, ' Is was done on the government ' .wnei lines of Italy, or face an . .nuuai deficit and rely on taxation O make up the deficit, as was done q a the EJvernment-owned lines of | n3.s." il The most serious considerations a r-, however. Mr. Ripley says, pol a icai ones. There are S50,000 rail . .sy employes in the United States. il .EGer government ownership, each Il {. jh-se would be political ap- a 3iaree. These, he sad. would not s as lower the character of the ser Y ce. but would be appalling in the I, eueIdoUs political supremacy that 2, lose o50.UJJ employees would give ia the party in power Worse stIlI ~ " aulj be the political results of the V attracts for tne construction of m .w line. etc. yc