Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1898-10-19


General Boyle and J. H.
Atwoods meeting at the opera house.
The boys have great desire to
hear what these noted orator shave to
say but as an honest ember of the
club it is my desire to keep as many
we can away. Boyle, | am inform
ed, speaks in the afternoon, and At
wood in the evening. Most of the
men will be at work in the afternoon
and | now think he will hold a
meeting of the club in the even ing
and by that means we can prevent
the members from attending the
meetings" Advocate and News.
Public Ownership of RaiIrO ads.
FRANK R. FORREST.
AS to public owned and and con-
trolled railways being a success l
wish to refer the reader to Consular
Report for August, 1894 No. 167, at
pages SO 0S1, ETC., report made By
Daniel W. Maratta, Consul General
to Australia, l Gated at Melbourne.
His repart reads as follows:
The railways of Australia prat tically
represent the assets for the national debts
of each colony, and to-day would probably
realize, if they were 10 be disposed of, the
full amount Of the national indebtedness.
1t is, however, impl obable that the
people concerned will ever allow these
great possesSi ms to pass into private hands,
believing that they should be retained to
open up and develOpe the resources of the
colonies and aid in the material progress
of Australia. Each railway syS-
m is underth control of three commits
sioners, who have had large powers to ad-
minister, free from political interference; :;
and those best able to judge are of the
opinion that the ystem has worked we'll.
In the other colonies the result of the rail-
way working under the capable commits
sioners that have heen appointed has been
most satisfactory, apd the people are con-
tent to leave the conditions generally as
they are at present"
Here we have it from the Consul
General to Australia as late as 1894
that the people of Australia are salts
fed with government ownership of
railways. By listening to the oppon-
ents of public ownerships of railways
one would think the government
owned railway countries are trying to
get rid OF the paternalistic spirit that
has prevaded them. At page 58l the
Consul General continues:
The aggregate of the national debt of
the colonies (Of Australia) would appear
10 be disproportionate when compared
with the limited population of Australia
and complaints have frequently been made
| in the English press that the colonies were
unmindful of the FeStina lente and all the
| go1d advice that convenient adage is sup
posed to offer. The adverse criticism has
not, however, up to the present had shad
ow of justification. Let it be remembered
| that the money borrowed has not been
sun&en i'll undertakings which give no re-
| turn, but has been expended in works whci
are reproductive, yielding direct return
on the capital and representing greater
value than the original cost; for instance
| the New South Wales lines, costing about
sl5! 81 900, are estimated to be worth more
than $194, 100000. Further, the money has
been spent in developing large resources
| which add to the wealth of the colonies
| 1t is wise to emphasize this point, as j
seems to have been overlooked to a large
| extent. lii Europe the national debts o
| the various countries (the United StaSe!
should have been added) have been incurred
principally through the expenses of pro
Ion zed wars, and the IN ney has gone be
yond recovery; but in these colonies tn,
expenditure is represented by public works
which are more valuable than the entr,
national debt and pay a direct return, il
some cases, equal to the interest due upo1
he capital invested"
Here we have au example of enter
prise not even excelled in proud
America. Australia making one hanc
wash the other. How simple aud ye
how different, tedious to get such fact
pounded into the head of the averag,
voter. There is reason why railroad
magDats, like President Ripley
hould be opposed to government
ownership of railways, but there i
no reason on top of God earth why
common laborer, farmer, machani
and professional voter should be op
posed to the government ownership
of public Utilities.
GERMANY, Sweden, Zurich, South
port and Bradford in England, an,
Paris ali have systems of mutual in
surance. The corporation of Londol
conducted the business of fire insur
ance from 1851 to 1858, at which lat
ter date it was abandoned throug
the opposition of those interested i
, private undertakings.