The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1905-06-20
Public Ownership
and Its Opponents.


The Jacksonville Times Union, which
can usually be depended upon to OPP
pose pretty nearly everything in the
way of popular industrial reform, ad-
yances the following plausible, but al
together illogical, argument against
the principle of public ownership of
public utilities:
The advocates Of municipal owner
ship declare, with every appearance of
sincerity, that the application of their
pet principle would at one stroke do
away with graft" and .'grafters."
This assertion is based upon the as
sumption that the government owner
ship of public utilities would render
impossible the personal profit now de-
rived from their operation. But this,
like many of the assumptions made in
the heat of argument, bears quite an
other aspect when viewed in the clear
light of reason.
Suppose, for example. that the grea.
railroad systems of the country were
owned and operated by the federal gov
ernment-that their stocks and bonds
were no longer in existence-anG that
no further opportunity existed for de-
irving profit from the manipulation of
these securities.
Would all this Justify the assump-
ton that the door to personal profit
was forever closed, or that the al
mighty dollar could no longer be an OBJ
ject of worship. simply because one of
its affairs had been destroyed?
Would not this vast and far-reach-
ing transportation system still be
operated by men-by men animated by
the same desire and Influenced by the
same ideals as those We see to-day.
actively engaged in the management Of
great corporate interests?
Would it not still be necessary to
purchase supplies. award contracts and
solve great engineering problems for
this railroad system, no matter how
thoroughly II might have been nation
allied? And would not these manifold
activities afford the same opportuni
ties for personal profit and give rise
to the same unsavory scandals as are
from time to time observed to develop
in the immediate vicinity of the post
Office Department. business operated
exclusively by the national govern
ment?
These questions, fortunately, answer
themselves. They indicate the nature
of the fallacy that lies at the bottom
OF the government ownership PROPOSE
ton. which can prove successful only
when human nature shall have under
gone a radical change.
Our contemporaries argument is in
genious but not ingenious. It is
based on the assumption that the
people are not capable of self
government-that they do not know
what they want or what is best
for them-and that some one else is
better able to own, manage and con-
troll their public utilities than they are
to do it themselves.
There are numerous arguments, and
good ones, against public ownership,
but this of the Times-Union, while one
OF the most common, is not one Of
them. 1t is, in fact, the weakest
though possibly the most subtitle, Of all
the arguments which can be advanced
against this great question.
No one expects human nature to
change No one expects that govern
ment enterprise of any kind will es-
cape attacks from human avarice and
graft No one expects absolute per-
lection in any order of affairs, whether
public or private.
All of this has nothing to do with
the question at all.
It Is simply a question Of whether
the people who use, pay for, and sup
port these great public utilities will
not find 1t more advantageous, every
thing considered, to own and operate
them in their own interests than to
have them owned and operated by and
in the. interests of private individuals.
Graft, dishonesty, human greed, and
human fallibility would all have to be
taken into account just as they are
row, and no doubt all OF it would
crop Out to a certain extent just as i
does now and always has done in az
fairs both public and private.
But under public ownership or con-
troll, all of these things would be open
to public inspection.
The opportunities for deceiving the
public and for robbins the many FOX