The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1904-07-30
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP.

In the issue Of the CommOner OF
July %, Mr.. Bryan says that while
be was the nominal leader OF the
democratic party he did not feel at
liberty to engraft new problems upon
the party creed, but that now be is
''free TO undertake a work which
until now be has avoided, namely, the
work Of organizing the radical and
progressive element OF the party -
With this introduction he proceeds
to elaborate one Of these new doc
trines which he would engraft upon
the democratic creed. 1t is that OF
government ownershia Of railroads.
He gives as his chief reason for this
innovation the fact consolidation
after consolidation has taken place
until a few men now control the
railroad trafic of the country and
defy both the legislative aud the
executive power Of the nation" Just
what is to be gained by buying over
and taking into its own hands what
the government cannot control in
others hands is not very clear, 1t is
not very clear how 1t is that railroad
interests corrupt government more
while they maintain an objective
existence than they would II they
should become government property
and their operation a part Of govern
ment function. This notion IS not
consistent with experience. The post
Office is one Of the most corrupting
influences in political life today. II
one has not thought so, let him care
fully read the story Of the St. Joseph
republican convention this week. Let
him read the editorials 10 every
decent republican paper in the state
this week. He will find that the re-
publican party in Missouri is power
less in the hands Of a federal post
Office machine. What would be the
case If it were reinforced by a rail-
road machine?
Mr.. Bryan's theory and all the
similar sOcialistic theories, II put into
practice, would serve only to transfer
the friction point from one place to
another. These theories all belong
In a class with those which have for
their object the discovery OF perpetual
motion and the philosophers stone
They have ever been the dream Of
benevolent UtopiaDS. and they are :
Effective only In postpOning a just
olution Of the problems OF the day. :
They are Of a piece with the theories :,
# those Missionaries who would have y
he government regulate the llqucr y
,rafic by going into the liquor bus :
ness. The church sometimes becomes :
,uamored OF the same fallacy, and
undertakes to get control Of worldll- !
ness by becoming the sponsor or the
dispenser of worldly amusements. :
We sometimes hear Of the marvellous
successes Of these public ownership
schemes In places where they have
been tried. And no doubt SOme Of
the most potent evils Of the pres.
ent plan are entirely eliminated.
But these reports never tell US Of the
new evils that are introduced. They
never tell US of the blighting effects
Of increased patronage; of the
insidious forms Of official corruption;
Of the dry rot that follows sure upon
the heels Of the bureaucratic system.
Theories and schemes avail but little
in these matters. In the last analysis
there is DO defense Of private rights
except in the virtue OF the individual
II we are not virtuOus enough to
regulate corporations under the pres
ent system we are not virtuous
enough to operate them to benefit
Of the public under government
ownership. Besides the doctrine is
not democratic doctrine. Individ-
ualism is democratic doctrine, but
socialism, never. Every scheme that
would lessen individual freedom, every
scheme that would minimize the
individual and %paternalize the state
would go to destroy the very virtues
In the individual upon which good
government depends.