The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-02-23
STUDENTS IN A DEBATE
Members of PhilOdemic Society Try
for the Merrick Medal.
The Question of Government Owner
ship of Railroads Ably Discussed
" inner of the Prize Not Made
known Until COmIacnccucnt-Ga
ton Hall Filled with Many Visitors

the question uLSCuSStd IS nlSHt 1T Idt
twenty fifth annual Me- ri, : 5ebate of the
phiicdemic Society al Georgetown Col
I iege last night. AS is customary on this
occasion, neither the winner Of individual
honors, who viii be awarded the Merrick
medal, nor the winning side will be an
nounced until commencement day.
The subject Of the debate was, Re
solved. That the Federal Government
should own. operate. and control all the
railroads in the United States" The af-
frmative side was taken by Thomas Il.
Fernedg OF, of Ohio, and II. Winfield
Jones, 'Gl, of Virginia. while the negative
was maintained by Ignatius J. CCstigan,
'02, of the District of Columbia. and
| George C. Green, '01, of North Carolina
The judges were Senator Stephen B. NAL
lory Of Florida, Representative Glynn of
New York, and George E. Hamilton. LII.
D.. Dean Of the Georgetown Law School
The debate was held in CASTOR Hall
which was well filed. After musical
selection by a mandolin quartette, War
rick J. Herman. 'O1. President of the
Philodemic Society introduced the de-
baters in a brief speech. He told of the
origin of The Merriek debate twentyfy five
years ago. when Richard Merrick, an
alumnus of Georgetown. endowed the
| ciety with a sum, the interest OF which
was TO be used each year for the purchase
of gold medal which should be awarded
TO the member of the society who ex-
celled in public debate.
The first of the debaters to take the
floor was Thomas A. Ferneding of the
affirmative. He opened the discussion with
! a statement OF the magnitude Of the ques-
| tiCn, and made reference to the consider
| alton it had been given by all the world.
| He asserted that first OF all public policy
| takes precedent of private right. and that
the interests of the individual must yield
TO such policy when cloaked in govern
4 mental authority. Mr. Ferneding said that
| 1t was generally conceded that the pres
| ent system tended toward a consolidation
| Of all the railroad interests. and he as
| serted that should such a consolidation be
| effected ii would be the greatest financial
| and political power known TO history. and
| that it would have such q hold on public
| affairs that the private citizen who dared
| protest would be crushed did he inter-
| fere with the designs of the railroads.
The remedy lay, he argued in government
ownership of the II ilroads. which could be
| managed TO best advantage under the pro-
visions OF the civil service laws similar
! 10 those now in force in the PostofIice
| Department
| He further said in this country more
| than any other government ownership
| would prevail because here the railroad
| interests were greater than anywhere else,
! here the people are the Government, and
! here the people Euffer from the injustlces
Of the railroads most The government
| ownership would serve to prevent exor-
bitsnt rates and fares, and there would be
an elimination OF the unsavory connection
the railroads have at present with politics
Of all kinds.
The first speaker for the negative was
| Ignatius ]. Costigan. who opened his ar
gument by citing objections to govern
ment ownership, claiming such a change
would result in Increases political cor
| ruptIon. depressing influences on business,
both OF railroads and other interests. The
speaker asserted that if such gigantic
department were added to the National
Government it would increase greatly the
corruption and dishonesty which even now
| were too often evident, and that it would
be impracticable because OF the element
| of political patronage that would surely
| control the management. He claimed
| the civil service system was by no means
| perfect. and is often defective where used.
| He said that in countries where govern
ment ownership had been successfully ap.
piled the conditions were different. Sons
were trained for public service, and there
| was not the fear of change every four
years or of a defeat OF policy every TWO
years as there is in the United States
He said that the rates could not be re-
duccd for the reason that the operating
| expenses would be so much greater than
these of a private corporation that the
rates would have TO be high in order to
make a paying proposition.
Mr.. Costigan concluded by bringing out
the point that should such a state OF af-
| fairs exist, the next party that came into
| power would attempt to reduce the rates
| without reducing the number of Offices
TO be given out. The saving would then
have to be made in the equipment of the
| railroads. and there would be mott only
poor service. but needless risk OF life
| on account OF the retrogressiOn.
| The affirmative side of the question was
| again set forth by H. Winfield Jones. who
| showed the enormous influence of the rail
roads on all property interests and citing
| instances of discrimination against Ger
| tain localities in the matter of rates and
| fares He said that on account of the
vastness OF the railroad interests. their
close connections with the people and the
many opportunities they found FOR evad-
i.g law, they had too great power, and
that this power should be controlled by
| strong influence. He argued that the best
influence obtainabIe was that of the Fed
eral Government, which had shown its ca
pacity for the management of great bust
ness affairs by the manner in which the
| Postoffice Department is conducted. He
contrasted the workings Of railroads IN
Australia owned by the Government and
those in this country controlled by indi-
viduals, showing that the percentage of
| earnings devoted to expenses was great Ter
in the United States than in Australia.
| George c. Green brought statistics to
his aid and stated. after pointing cut that
a change was only to be desired when
really needed. that the rates and fares
charged in this country by the railroads
were much less than on Government rail-
roads in other countries which We're gen
orally conceded to be inferior TO these in
the@}nitcd States. He admitted govern
ment ownership might be all .isnt hen
first started but said that The example
of countries where it mad failed showed
that there was no incentive on me part
Of Government officials TO keep the rail-
roads up to high degree of efficiency,
and that the wishes of The people we're
not regarded with the same solcitdIe
displayed by private corporations. He
predicted that political corruption would
set in with the adoption of a government
| ownership policy, that the perpetulty Of
our political institutions would be endan-
gered and perpetual menace to indus
trial freedom established
ACCUSATIONS IN CHINESE.
sam Wah KEGS Letters Said 10 I'M