The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1906-09-06

are spoken on the different divisions Of the lines
Sweden and Norway each owns its railroads,
but they have no trouble about interstate traffic,
although their political relations are somewhat
strained The ownership and operation of the
local lines by the several state governments is
not only feasible but it suits itself to the condi-
lions existing in the various states In those
states where the people are ripe for change the
local lines can be purchased new lines be built
at once, while private ownership can continue
IN those states in which the people still prefer
private ownership. Some states have been more
careful than others to prevent the watering OF
stock and in the acquiring of roads each state
can act according to the situation which it has
to meet.
AS to the right of the governments federal
and state, to own and operate railroads there
can De no doubt. Ii we can deepen the water in
the lakes and build connecting canals in order
TO cheapen railroad transportation during half OF
the year, we can build a railroad and cheaper
rates the whole year; if we can spend several
hundred millions on the Panama canal to lower
transcontinental rates, we can build railroad
from New York to San Francisco to lower both
transcontinental and local rates. The United
States mail is increasing SO rapidly that we shall
soon be able to pay the interest the cost of
trunk lines out of the money which we now pay
to railroads for carrying through mails If any Of
you question the propriety of my mentioning this
subject | beg to remind you that the president
could not have secured the passage of the rate
bill had he not appealed to the fear of the more
nothing will so restrain the railroad magnates
from attempting to capture the interstate COM
merce commission as the same fear The high
handed manner in which they have violated law
and ignored authority, together with the corrup-
ton discovered in high places has done more to
create sentiment in favor of public ownership
than all the speeches and arguments of the oppo-
nents of private ownership.
i have referred to the railroad question
as part of the trust question because they are
so interviewer that it is difficult to consider one
without the other
Gust word more in regard to the trusts.
Some defend them on the ground that they are
economic development and that they can not
be prevented without great injury to our indus
trial system. This may be answered in two
ways: First, trusts are political development
rather than an economic one; and second the
trust system can not be permitted to continue
even though it did result in net economic gain
1t is political because it rests upon the corpora
ton and the corporation rests upon statutory
foundation. The trust, instead of being a natural
development is a form of legalized larceny and
can exist only so long the law permits it to
exist. That there is an economic advantage in
production large scale, may be admitted but
because million yards of cloth can be produced
in one factory at a lower price per yard than one
hundred thousand yards can be produced in the
same factory it does not follow that cloth would
be produced at still lower price per yard if all
the cloth consumed in the United States were pro-
duced in one factory under one management
There is a point beyond which the economic ad.
vantage of large production ceases The
moment an industry approaches the posi-
tion of a monopoly it begins to lose in
economic efficiency for monopoly discourages
invention, invites deterioration in quality and de-
stroys most potent factor in production viz:
Individual ambition But the political objections
to trust overcome any economic advantage
which it possibly have. No economic adyan.
tage can justify industrial despotism or com.
pensate the nation for the loss of independence
among its producers Political liberty could not
long endure under an industrial system which per-
mitted few powerful magnates to control the
means of livelihood of the rest of the people,
"Landordism the curse of Europe is an in.
nocent institution in comparison with the
trust carried to its logical conclusion.
The man who argues that there is an
pnnnnrnin aduanfaun n 10 mon IL.