The Monticellonian., 1906-09-06
| THE RAILROAD QUESTION.
Interwoven wIth the rrust ouestIon.

Interwoven With the Trust Question.
 The railroad question is also interwoven with the trust question. Nearly all the private mOnOpoiieS have received rebates or secured other advantages over cempet- ttors. Absolute equality of treatment at the hands of the railroads would go far toward crtppling the trusts, and l rejoice that the president has had the courage to press the question upon congress While the law. it was finally distorted by the senate. is not all that could be wished. it deserves fair trial.
 A New Danger
 Rate regulation was absolutely neces- sarY. and it furnishes some relief from the unhearable conditions which previous ly existed; but We must not forget tn the Nesting of this enormous power in the hands of the commission appointed by the president introduces a new danger If an appointive board has the rower to fix rates. and can. by the exercise of that power; increase or decrease by hundreds 0f millions of dollars the annual revenues of the railroads. will not the railroads feel that they have large pecuniary h. terest in the election of a president friend ly to the railroads?
 Public Ownership of Railroads
 Experience has demonstrated that mu- nicipal corruption is largely traeeable to the fact that franchise corporations de- sire to control the city council and thus Increase their dividends If tEeir man asers adopt the same policy, tlse senti- ment in favor of the ownership of the railroads by the government is likely to increase as rapidly throughout the e9ln- try as the sentiment In favor of munich pal ownership has increased in the cities Railroads Must Become Public Property.
 l have already reached the conclusion that railroads partake so much of tlie nature of a monopoly that they must ul= timdtely became public property and be managed by public ofneials in the inter est of the Whole community in accord aHee With the we44-aetined theory that public ownership Is necessary where com petition ImnoSGI Ible T I-,, that the country is ready for this change. do not know that majority of my own party favor it. but l believe that an increasing number of members of all parties see in public ownership The sure remedy for disCriminatiOns between persons and politics. and for the extor- donate rates for the carrying of freight and passengers. Believing, however that the operation of all the railroads by the federal government would result in a centrallzatton which would all but lob. Hterate state lines. I prefer to see bnlv the trunk lines operated by the fedefeiI government. and the local lines by th, several state governments. Some have opposed thls dual ownership as imprac- ucable, but investigation in Europe has convinced me that it is entirely prae- ticabfe. Nearly all the railroads of Ger. many are owned by the several states the empire not even owning the trInl lines, and yet the interstate traffic i Constantinople to Vienna, one passes through Turkey, Bulgaria, Servia. Hua- gary and a part of Austria without a change of cars. and yet each countI., owns and operates it's own roads an different languages are spoken on tn different divisions of the line. Swede. and Norway each owns it's railroads bu. they have no trouble about interstate traffic, although their political relations are somewhat strained. The ownership and operations of the local lines by thu several state governments is not onlN feasible. but il suits itself to the condi- tons existing in it's various states. r. those states where the people are rip, for a change. the local lines can be plif- chased. or new lines built. at once. WniIe private ownership can continue in tilos states in which the people still prefer private ownership. Some states nave been more careful than others to proven the watering of stock. and in the acquir- ing of roads each state can act accOrdine to the situation which it has to niecet
 No Doubt of Government Power.
 As to the right of tine governments. fcd- eral and state. to own and operate rait- roads there can be no doubt. Ii We CaH deepen tile water in the lakes. and bun! railroad transportation during half of the year. We can build a railroad and cheap en rates the whole year if We can speaf several hundred millions on the Panama canal to lower transcontinental rates, we can build a railroad from New York L. San Francisco to lower both transronti- mental and local rates. The United States mail is increasing so rapidly that We shall soon be aDfe to pay the interes on the cost of trunk lines out of ttp money which We now pay to railroads for carrying through mails. If any Of yot question the propriety of my mentioning this subject. 1 beg to remind you tha the president could not have secured thu passage of the rate bIll had he not az pealed to the fear of the more radica remedy of government ownership. am nothing will SD restrain the rail-oa4 magnates from attempting to capture thc interstate commerce commission as tn same fear The highhanded manner i: which they have violated law, and is- nored authority. together with the cor ruption discovered in high places hae done more to create sentiment fin favor a public ownership than all the spec 5hss and arguments of the opponents of pri vate ownership. l have referred to ta. railroad question as part of the truS question because -..ey are so interwoVes that fl is difficult to consider one withou the other.
 Trusts Political Development
 Just word more Tn regard to the trusts Some defend them on the ground that they are an economic development. and that they cannot be prevented withou great injury to our industrial system. This may be answered in two ways. First. trusts are a political development. rather than an economic one; and. second, the trust system cannot be permitted to con tinue. even though 1t did result in a net economic gain. It is political. because It rests upon the corporation. and the cor poration rests upon statutory founda- ton. The trust, instead of being q natu- di ttNtioliiieutt i5 ioiiii Ol itSdilZtu larceny. and can exist only so long as the law permits to exist. That there Is an economic advantage in production on a large scale may be admitted; but be- cause million yards of cloth can be pro- duced in one fat ary at a lower price per yard than one hdAdred thousand yards can be produced in the same factory it does not follow that cloth would be pro- duced at a still lower price per yard If all the cloth consumed in the United States were produced in one factory or under one management. There is a point beyond which the economic advantage of large production ceases. The moment an industry approaches the position of d mo- nopoly it begins to lose in economic effi- tion. invites deterioration in quality. and destroys q most potent factor in produe- tion. viz. individual ambition. But the political objections to a trust overcome