The Washington times., 1905-05-06
w here The Times Stands.
The Times is in receipt of the fol-
lowing letter:

Editor of The Times:
Dear Sir: I have been reading with
some attention the series of editorials
II your paper devoted to discussions OF
railway rates. At first I thought vol,
Nsre on the side OF the people and
against the railroads, but the article
II today's paper goes pretty far against
the people, and indicates TO me that
you are opposed to Government owner
snip, ana even to Government control.
OF lae railroads Would it be asking too
forth what your real position is?
very respectfully.
The Times is glad to get this let
ter; glad for several reasons. among
Which are these: The letter is typical
OF the suspicion which darts its head
up whenever anything is said in favor
OF railroads that the person or pa
per SO speaking is under the dorni-
nance Of capitalistic and corporate
influence; and it gives occasion to de-
hne our policy. not only with regard
TO railway rates, but upon all subjects
or general interest.
The suspicion referred to, and
which pervades this letter, is quick
'tASSSESANoQ iIS dJtiOU. L lie
railroads have themselves to thank
Ior this situation, for they have i'm
pressed the public with the idea that
they are stiff-necked, arbitrary, and
humptious in their dealings, and in
elined to ignore the rightful interest
CT the people in their methods. They
have. moreover. laid themselves open
10 the most severe structures by their
persistent corruption Of legislatures.
their unlawful system Of rebates, and
their Illegal determinations.
The object of The Times is to serve
the people at large. not any particular
class or set Of them. The Times is pri-
marty newspaper; it is not the organ
OF any party, sect. or clique The only
az 1t has to grind is in the interest of
the people, particularly the people of
the District Of Columbia. and when
IL grinds that ak 1t grinds it to hew
TO the line. let the chips fall where
they may. The Times does represent
tue people in this question, as In 9th
ess, but it aims to represent their best
interests.
The Times Is rather proud of its
independence and Of the public con-
Ildenee It has won by its initiative
in many matters of local and national
import. Not TO go beyond present
public memory, we refrain from men
tioning more than two instances in
which The Times has taken the lead
in its editorial columns: the Post
ONCE scandals and the protection OF
the motormen. Again, The Times is
glad that it has never deliberately
lent its columns TO those insidious
forms of advertising which have re-
Gently become SO very popular; all
the advertisements it contains are
paid for. and appear under proper
elassIfcations
The attitude of The Times with
regard to the question Of railway
rates may be defined as one OF earnest
and expectant attention. It does not
pretend TO understand the matter in
all its ranifications. and would be slow
10 credit the claim Of anyone who
ed. It believes, however, that grave
Injustice has been done by the rail-
ways in the past. it thinks there is
vast room for improvement at pres
ent, and it is determined TO do all
IN its power to clarity the subject and
point out. as far as it may, what it
coneeives to be the safe, sane, consti-
tutional thing TO be done in the future.
The question is not yet closed, how
ever; the time is To come when any
one may say: This is the thing TO do.
When that time arrives this paper
will take its position on the merits
OF the case as developed by close aud
comprehensive study, and the paper
believes the people will approve its
course.
The Times has no other interest
in the railways than has the little
boy who serves you this paper, but
the paper. the little boy, and you have
an enormous interest in the preserva-
ton of truth and equity and justice in
i2s0 %0G&lbi . Sll1Q III ti4E CiGlIiIdiiOu
OF personal prejudice and inconsid-
crate haste III the settlement of great
questions. Our correspondent says
he thought We were on the side of
the people and against the railroads"
IN that one sentence is he both right
and wrong; The Times is on the side
of the people at all times, for they are
its only clients, but II does not follow
that it must, therefore, be either for
or against the railroads. He says fur
ther that we .'are opposed TO Govern
ment ownership. and even to Govern
ment control, OF the railroads. And
>khere again his statement IS too broad.
for this paper recognizes not only the
possibility but the advantages Of such
Eeontrol or ownership, under certain
military and autoeratie conditions.