Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-10-09
GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

One of the grounds upon which the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme is com mepded to advanced and thoughtful people is that 1t is a promising expert ment in government ownership" The Intercolonial represents government operation as well as government own-. ership, and many think that, while government operation is too costly un- der existing political conditions, gov ernHent ownership pure and simple, would 20 far to solve the great prob lem of the greedy railway and the ex- plotted public
 Now does the proposed plan give us "government ownership" in any prop CT meaning of the words?
 What friends of government own ership" mean is an arrangement where by the public will reap the. benefit of owning the right of way, either by se- curing competition sufficient. to keep down the rates. or by diverting to the public purse all the legitimate. profits helonging to the right of way and franchise-that is. all the profits except such as may fairly be regarded as earned by the capital employed in the operation of the line.
 Does this plan do either of these things?
 To begin with. it provides directly against equal competition, The line is leased outright to the Grand Trunk Pacific Co. The Grand Trunk Pacific officials will man it from end to end. If any other railway--even the gov erpnsnt's own railway. the Intercol- onfal-desires to use this government link. it must pay "such reasonable comDensation as may be agreed upon'' to the Grand Trunk Pacific Go. Mark that point! The compensation for the use of the government-owned line is to be paid to the company@which leases it-not to the government which owns it.
 Thus no other railway can hope to get the use of this link for the next fifty years upon conditions which will nut it on ednal terms with the Grand Trunk Pacific. No competing line could possibly secure such a position that it could cut Grand Trunk Pacific rates over its own leased rails, and with it's own officers on duty at all 1 points.
 The government is, of course the owner. It will receive rent for the line and will regain possession at the termination of the lease. But it is the l owner only in the sense in which q man owns rented house, which is not at all what friends of "government ownership" mean by that phrase. They refer to ownership in the sense ir which a city owns it's streets or 2 l county its roads. Any man with a team l can drive on the roads. and s'cabby' can ply on the streets. Thus rates nrt | kept down. But if the right to drive | cabs on the city streets were leased tt one firm. then we should have the kinf or ownership which will exist in con nection with this line. It would be ar ownership calculated to breed monop oly, not an ownership which woulS guarantee competition.
 Then as to profits: the government i, to get no share of them from frs ow1 road. It will receive rental Of B ne cent on it's cost after ten years hay, elapsed. No matter how the road may prosper. it will get not a cent more Thus the program of the advocates a government ownership" again fail at this point. We may have the name but we will not have the gain. W, will no more receive profits than VI will secure competition.
 The fact of the matter is that tn j taking phrase government ownership has been stolen for scheme which. i ever carried out, will only bring it int
 disrep4lte. The people will say: "I this be government ownership. W . want no more of it.'' And at the sam
 moment when this betrayal of "goy ernment ownershipy Is being Darne frated. government operation will b dealt a killln@ blow by the final rui