The daily morning journal and courier., 1900-03-21
LECTURE BY PROF. HADLEY
DELTVERED LAST NIGHT IN WORTH
 SHEFFIELD H1LL,

Subject Was "Public Control of In-
 dustrial Activity"-The Lecture Was
 Most Interesting One and Was
 Largely Attendedl
 President Hadley delivered an inter- esting lecture in North Sheffield hall last night on Public Control of Indus- trial Activity" being the tenth of the Sheffield lectures. There was a very large audience and the lecture was one of the most interesting yet given in the series. In substance President Had ley spoke as follows: s...
 The growth of large corporations and the increasing consolidation of capital in every form of industrial enterprise has brought to the front now as never before that part of the question of socialism which relates to the relations between government and industrial en- terprise.
 This relation takes one Iof three forms: CD Private enterprise, with only such control as is given by the general laws relating to property and the>judicial decisions of the courts con- nected herewith; CD state control i. e., private ownership coupled with special legislation intended to so limit the free dom of corporate action as to prevent serious abuses, and prescribe special lines of conduct approved by the pub lie; (3) state ownership, with the direct control by agents of the administration which such ownership generally inn plies.
 To those who look at the subject su- perficially it sometimes seems as though private enterprise meant management of industry by. the few for the few state control management by the few but for the people, and direct state ownership management by the people and for the people. This view of the matter is urged by many who are anxious for a change in the direction of increased state activity. However, it can be readily shown to be in many re- spects falacious.
 In the first place, whatever system is adopted, the management will be in the hands of the few. It is necessary for the successful conduct of modern industry that it should be managed in this way. Where the massing of large forces and readiness to take responsi- UIlly dIC GSScHtldl C0HllStllAdllOli Ol power is essential also. As Macaulay says: Armies have won victories un- der bad generals, but no army ever won victory under a debating society," Moreover, these few men in whom power is centralized are likely to be, in large measure, the same whether the industry be held in the name of a pri- vate corporation or in the name of the community. More and more as years go on, the same qualities which com mand success in business tend to com mand success ill politics also. Much of the complaint with regard to the effect of the money power in politics is but a confession of the inevitableness of this fact. Not that the men will be ex- actly the same in the one case that they are in the other There are some who control more money than votes, and who will have greater influence under system of private management The former will naturally be champions of the continuance of the present, system; the latter will naturally be desirous for a change. But the men who would be most conspicuously successful in the one alternative are likely to be but lit- tie less so under the other.
 Nor is there that sharp distinction in lines of policy between public and private enterprise which is implied in the antithesis between management for the few and management for the peo- pie. From one standpoint all enter prise, state as well as private, must be managed for the few who have in vested their money in it. From another standpoint all industry, private as well as state, must be managed for the many who can utilize it advantageous ly. It is sometimes said that state rail roads will not have to pay the profits that are now distributed by private railroads. But what does this mean? Will the state get the railroads for nothing? No. It must borrow money to pay for them. The attempt to con- fscate them without pay would not only be unconstitutional, but would be destructive of all social order. On the money thus borrowed it must pay in- terest. The railroads of the country at present, taking good years and bad years together, are probably not earn ing more than 3 per cent on the actual investment. Should the government therefore, 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 that is now distributed by agents of private corporations to the holders of railroad stocks and bonds.
 On the other hand, the privately owned roads, as well as the state owned roads, must take the interest of the general public into consideration. If they do not do SO they will fail. A private railroad or private manufac- turing corporation reduces rates, not because it loves the consumer but because only by reduction of rates can its plant be properly utilized. To go one step farther back, the law toler- ates these large corporations just be- cause this motive has this effect. If it did not have, we should still be per sisting in the semi-socialistic sytem of the thirteenth century instead of en- toying the institution of private prop erty as we now understand it. The means by which the apparently uncon- trolled private corporation is led to do public service may be different from I.,,. 1arr