The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1905-11-16
Some Questions on
the Other Side of the Subject.


The opponents Of the public owner
ship proposition are fond Of citing
as the chief objection TO it. the IN
known possibilities Of political corrup-
tion which they say. would result inl
q transfer from private TO public
ownership of the great public utilities
which have now become a part Of our
industrial and commercial life. This
objection IS set forth in the following
from the Montgomery. Advertiser;
"a LITTLE LESSON FROM NEW
YORK
In the following from The Louis
vile C0urier-Journal those who are in
any way inclined TO municipal owner
ship win find food for serious refec-
ton.
william Randolph Hearst, advo-
cate OF the municipal ownership Of
public utilities. complains that the
ems in New York used the police
end other city employees 10 corrupt
the ballot and steal the once OF
Mayor from him If this be actually
true. think how much greater would
have been the stealing forces Of the
ems had they been able also to use
the thousands Of men employed In
operating the public utilities, which
WOULD have been possible had Mr..
Hearsts theories of municipal owner
ship been in practice. Controlling
siich patronage as municipal owner
ship places at Cts disposal and pos
Eessing so vast an army OF tools and
heelers. q corrupt party. organization
could intrench itself and remain per
Detuallv imm0vable. such a condi-
ton is totally contrary 70 the spirit
and purpose OF republican govern
ment Does Mr.. Hearst, who declares
himself robbed unoer the existing sys-
TEN. desire that robbery be made
easier voters rendered more impOtent
and unbend.ng candidates mace more
helpless2
carry out the idea Of government
control to its logical conclusion and
what sort OF service would we have
along cur great lines Of transpOrta-
ton Human Imagination cannot con
Ceive of the party tyranny and oppres-
sion that would result from such a
policy
Without going into detail as 10 the
possibilities. yet unproven. of couup-
ton under public ownership. it would
DC interesting 70 speculate a little on
some of the following propositions:
Were not the owners Of all the pri-
nately owned public utilities in New
York CITY opposed TO Mr.. Hearst and
his public ownership platform?
was not their money and influence
used to defeat him in the election?
Was ID not their money that went
90 make up Tammany's corruption
fund By which Murphy was enabled
90 buy and steal the election2
Were not an Of their employees
Influenced and c0erced into voting for
the private interests Of the present
private owners Of the public utilities
en- New York Just as effectively as
they could have been influenced OF
ooerced under a public ownership
system?
Tn short would 10 be possible under
pubic ownership % bnOwbeat and
coerce an employee into voting a GER
tain way, any more than 81 is pos
sible 10 do. or is done, under the
present system Of private ownership
And would political parties which now
raise their corruption funds from the
favored private owners Of public
franchises. find It as easy to raise
those funds when the possibility Of
private traffic in public utilities had
been removed?
For our own part we do not believe
that any system of public ownership
could be more prolific I'm possibilities
Of political corruption. than the
present condition in New York CITY
BY which the gas trust. the traction
trust the street railway trust the
ferry trust. and the NUMEROUS other
trusts which control the public uuli-
ties there. are now enabled TO control
the politics OF that metropolis.