The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1905-03-09

as obsolete and SCOTS at innoatiOns of
demonstrated utility. He prefers res
idence guiltless of pluming and an edi-
flee building without an elevator or
any of the modern conyeniences. Be-
cause his ancestors did not know how
to heat building in winter or ventl-
late it in summer he is content to suf-
fer from the inclemencies of both sea-
sons.
Politically and economically ali of his
teachers were of the individualistic
school. In fact, there was no other
school in Great Britain. Germany was
forced to listen to the radical theories
of Karl Marx and Ferdinand La Salle
France was agitated by the teachings
of st. Simon, Louis Blanc and others
more or less visionary, who contended
for the supremacy of collective over in
dividual effort. But the writings of
such men made no impress in England
against the sober logic of Adam Smith,
John Stuart Mill and more recently
Herbert Spencer. All of these and
scores of lesser dogmatists treated the
theory of public ownership with cru
dite contempt or else ignored it as not
worthy of attack.
How comes it that from such soil
and in such an atmosphere the state
and the city have set themselves up as
the superior of the private owners of
vast enterprises How comes it that
the conservative and unimaginative
Englishman has boldly initiated pro-
gram which would siagger the adapt
able French and confound the practi-
cal and progressive German?
In no nation in Christendom has In
dividual effort made SO lamentable a
failure as in Great Britain. / do not
mean failure in dividend paying
sense, but failure to keep anywhere
near abreast Of the mechanical, inven-
tive and engineering progress of the
age. The rapid development of ma
chinery and of processes had the same
effect in England as elsewhere-viz, the
formation of large corporations, some
|of which secured monopolistic control
in arious fields. Gas plants, water
works and street railways were thus
constructed and operated. At the in
ception Of these enterprises there was
no demand for public ownership. 1t
was not until travelled Englishmen de-
clared that such properties were far
below the standard of efficiency and
economy established in other countries
that there was clamor for improved
service and reduced rates.
| Then it was that the inertia of the
English and Scottish capitalists reveal
| ed itself. These placid men couic see
no reason why they should change.
They smiled at the assertion that there
was anything to learn from what had
| developed in the United States and in
other countries which had a mania for
tearing down old things and erecting
new ones in their places. George Fran
| els Train had landed in England and
| performed the miracle of introducing
horse cars, or "tramways," as they
| term them. Was it not enough to
adopt one American device without
attempting to follow the hazardous ex-
periments of cable cars and electrical
traction? They would not listen to any
demand for modern methods.
In taking this attitude they were in
exact accord with other property own.
ers whose money was invested in enter
Iprises not SO public in their nature.
The landlord whose buildings were de.
voted to Offices did not tear them down
and erect new ones when reminded
that New York, Chicago and scores
| of American cities had revolutionized
that type of architecture. The dens
| off Fleet street and the Strand were
good enough for Dombey & Son, and
the squalid quarters OF the Cheshire
Cheese served to meet the demands of
Samuel Johnson and Oliver Goldsmith.
Why tear them down in imitation of a
nation which was woefully lacking in
antiquities and traditions? Some of
the hotels yielded to popular demand
for elevators, SO they put them in and
called them lifts" but absolutely re-
fused to consider any such wild-eyed
scheme as system of plumbing which
would provide hot and cold water in
rooms occupied by their guests. Nor is
there hotel in Greay Britain which /