The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1900-04-05
OFFICIAL PAPER KENOSHA COUNTY

Private Versus Government Railways
President HadIey of Yale, who is a
recognized authority on the subject Of
railroads and an opponent of the
proposition that the government should
own the railroads, in a recent address
gave the reasons for his position on
this subject President Hadley recog
nfzes the increased interest in that
form of socialism which relates to the
relations between the government and
industrial enterprise and attributes
this increase to the growth of large
corporations and the increasing con-
s0lidation of capital He says, how
ever, that whatever system is adopted
the management will be in the hands
of the few and that these few in whom
the power is centralized are likely to
be the same whether the industry be
held in the name of a private corpora
ton or in the name Of the community.
"'The same qualities that command
success in business tend to command
success in politics also," says the presi-
eflent of Yale. This is his first point.
His second point is stated in these
words 'It is sometimes said that state
railroads will not have to pay the prof
it's that are now distributed by private
railroads. But what does this mean?
The state gets the railroads for moth
ing? No. 1t must borrow money to
pay for them. The attempt to confis-
cate them without pay would not only
Zoe unconstitutional, but would be de-
.Structive Of all social order. On the
money thus borrowed it must pay in
rEerest. The railroads Of the country at
present, taking the good years and the
bad years together, are probably not
earning more than per cent. Should
the government borrow money at
per cent it would simply mean that
the same amount of money would be
distributed by government agents to
holders of government stocks and
bonds"
The advocates of government owner
ship in answer to these arguments,
which they say are not new, say that
Gn the first place there would be no
management" as implied by President
HadIey under government ownership.
The managers" who would be dis
pensed with if the railroads passed
under government control are those
who have little if anything to do with
the real business Of operating the
roads. They are the high salaried 'off1-
Gals" such as presidents, vice presi-
dents, directors and the like, who do
their railrOading on paper with stocks
and bonds. The men who railroad on
tracks with locomotives and cars would
In great measure be the same under
government ownership as under pri-
vate ownership. AS to the other point
advanced by President Hadley it is
claimed by those of the opposite view
that the apparent low average earn
Tngsof the railways are due to anumber
of causes that would be entirely absent
under government ownership. Among
these causes, it is alleged, are dishon-
est management for stock jobbing pur-
poses, princely salaries paid to useless
officials, favoritism shown to infuen-
tiaI shippers, ruinous competition by
DaraIleIed lines and in the running of
half empty or wholly empty trains,
and so on. In support of their conten-
aiOn the opponents Of the present sys-
tenn point to the many cases where
railroads bankrupted under private
management have been rehabilitated
and made to pay under the control of
the courts or in the hands of receivers.
There are good points on. each side
OF this controversy, which is growing
IN interest very fast, and all good citi-
gems should endeavor to select the chaff
from the wheat in preparation for the
day when the question will be removed
from the domain of argument to the
field of practical action.