The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1906-09-04

dent is a new danger. II ar appoin-
tive board has the power to fix rates
and can by the exercise Of that pow
er increase or decrease by hundreds
Of millions Of dollars the annual rev.
enues Of the railroads, will not the
railroads feel that they have a large
pecuniary interests in the election Of
a president friendly to the railroads?
/; Experience has demonstrated that mu-
nicipal corruption is largely tracea-
BILE to the fact that franchise corpora
tons desire to control the city coun-
Gil and thus increase their dividends
II the railroad managers adopt the
same policy the sentiment in favor OF
the ownership of the railroads by the
government is likely to increase
throughout the country as the senti-
| ment in favor Of municipal ownership
has increased in n cities.
GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.
have already reached the conclus-
ion that railroads partake SO much Of
the nature Of monopoly that they must
ultimately become public property
and be managed by public officials in
the interest of the whole communi-
, ty in accordance with the we'll defined
theory that public ownership is neces-
sary where competition is possible. I
do not know that the country is ready
for this change / do not know that
a majority Of my party favor it. but
7 believe that an increasing number
Of the members Of all parties see in
public ownership the sure remedy for
determinations between persons and
places and for the extortiOnate rates
for the carrying Of freight and pas
SengerS.
Believing, however, that the opera
ton Of the railroads by the federal
government would result in a CEN
tralization which would all but oblit-
crate state lines, | prefer to see only
the trunk lines operated by the fed
eral and local lines by
several state governments.
Some have opposed this dual owner
ship as impracticable but investigation
in Europe has convinced me that it
is entirely practicable. Nearly all the
railroads Of Germany are owned by
the several states. the empire not
even owning the trunk lines, and yet
the interstate traffic is in no way
INSTRUCTED.
The ownership and operation Of the
local lines by the several state gov
is not only feasible, but it
suits itself to the conditions existing
in the various states. In those states
where people are ripe for a change
the local can be purchased or new
lines be built at once, while private
ownership can continue in the states
which the people should prefer pri-
vate ownership.
AS to the right of the governments,
federal and state, to own and operate
railroads, there can be no doubt. II
we car deepen the water in the k
and build connecting canals in order to
800 -o;1~DaI 40 W. ITO NV
ing half Of the year, we can build a
railroad and cheaper rates the whole
year; If we can spend several hundre
millions on the Panama canal to lower
transcOntinental rates, We can build
a railroad from New York to San
Francisco to lower both "transcontinen-
tai and local rates. The United
states mail is increasing SO rapidly
hat we shall soon be able to pay the
interest on 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 l 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 radical remedy of
government ownership and nothing
will SO restrain the railroad magnateS
from attempting to capture the in
terstate commission as to
arouse the same fear. The highland
ed n in which they have violat-
ed law and ignored authority, togeth-
er with the corruption discovered in
high places, has done more to create
sentiment in favor of public ownership
than all the speeches and arguments
of the opponents of private owner
ship.
MONOPOLIES.
Just a word more in regard to the
trusts. Some defend them on the
ground that they are an economic de-
Velopment and that they cannot be
prevented without great injury to our
industrial system. This may be ans
Wered in two ways: first, trusts are a
political development rather than an
economic one: and second, the trust
system cannot be permitted, even
thought it did result in a net economic !
gain. 1t is political because it rests
upon the corporation and the corpora
ton rests upon statutory foundation.
The trust, instead Of being a natural
development, is a form of legalized
larceny and can exist only so long as
the law permits it to exist. If there
is an economic advantage production
on a large scale may be admitted. but
there is a point beyond which the
economic advantage of large produc-
ton ceases. The moment an indus
try approaches the position Of a mo-
nopoly it begins to lose in economic
efficiency, for a monopoly discourageS
invention invites deterioration in quail
ity and destroys a most potent factor
in production, viz, individual ambi-
ton.
But the political objections to a
trust overcome any economic advant-
age which it can possibly have. No
economic advantage can justify an in
dustrial despotism or compensate a
nation, for the loss of independence
among its producers. Political liberty
could not long endure under an in
dustrial system which permitted a few
powerful magnates to control the
means OF livelihood Of the rest of the
people.
Landlordism the curse Of our repub