Amador ledger., 1906-03-09
CITY OFFICIAL PAPER.
Public Ownership.


the people as a whoIe-that is the
government-is the latest fad in
politics. This is being pushed to the
front by men with political aspira
tions, and new party, with this
plank as Its cardinal attraction, has
recently been launched. Perhaps
it is thought that the mere idea of
every individual - no matter how
lowIy and poor he may behaving an
interest as one of the people in the
great industries now under the
management of corporations-su as
railroads, water, light, and other
necessities-is calculated to capture
the unthinking masses. 1t is an
immense stride toward socialism
that all property, all wealth, should
be owned and controlled by the people
as a community. No donbt the
notion will cut something of figure
in the politics of the future, as the
tendency is strong in human nature
to run after strange gods in the hope
that the thrifUless will be benefited
at the expense of the industrious
classes.
We belive that public ownership as
advocated by these political vision
aries as a remedy for all the evils
that affiict the people, is one of the
most mischievous doctrines ever pro-
claimed in the name of reform. We
do not say that the ownership of
street lines, water and lighting
facilities by cities is not commend
able thing in many instances. In
some cases it might prove a step in
the right direction. But the sweep
ing adoption of such system to the
affairs of the state and general govern
ment would, in our opinion, prove
disastrous. 1t would bring no relief,
and tend to increase, rather than
decrease, the cost of conducting
such enterprises. AS an economic
proposition, the weight of argument
from actual experience, is heavily
against it.
1t is weII-known that any business
carried on by the government
whether city, county, state or nation
aI-costs more for operating expenses
than under private ownership.
Numerous instances might be cited
in proof of this. AS a rule, the
government is charged higher for
work of any kind than private
party. 1t is hardly necessary to give
examples in proof of this. The truth
is business of public nature cannot,
or at least is not-carried on for the
same expense as private enterprise
of like nature. A price of work
done tor the county is charged at
somewhat higher rate than for an
individual. Sometimes, the differ
ence is really extravagant to the
verge for plunder. Still, it seems to
Ee settled that a decided difference
in charge is taken as a matter of
course.
1t is beyond dispute that the state
printing offices costs fully double the
sum that the same work would cost
If let out to private firms. This is
true of the federal printing office.
And all other enterprises involving
work that could be undertaken by
private firms must come in the same
category of extravaganza.
This government ownership is not
a matter of theory. 1t has been in
vogue for many years in other
countries. Railroads, telegraph and
telephone lines are owned by the
people in several foreign countries.
And these utilities are managed on a
fairly economical scale, compared
with this county. 1t is notorious,
however, to all who have travelled in
such countries, that they are generally
very backward in development; that
fares and freights are higher there
than here, and altogether the service
suffers as regards efficiency when
compared with the United States
This country owes its amazing
advancement mainly to private and
corporate enterprise on these lines.
A change to governmental ownership,
we believe, would be disastrous from
s,,E -