The Tupelo journal., 1906-09-07

mont in favor Of the ownership Of the
railroads by the government Is likely to
increase us rapidly throughout the coun-
try as the sentiment in favor of munici-
pal ownership has increased In the cities.
Railroads Must Become Public Property.
/ have already reached the conclusion
that railroads partake SO much OF the
timately became public properly, and be
managed by public officials in the inter-
est OF the whole community in accord
ance with the weu-uefined theory that
public ownership is necessary where COM
petition is impossible. / do not know
that the country 2 ready for this
OF my own party favor 1t. but ! believe
that an increasing number Of members
OF al parties see IN public ownership the
persons and politics. and for the extor-
ionate rates for the carrying of freight
the operation Of all the railroads by the
federal government would result in a
Capitalization which would all but OBJ
the trunk lines operated BY the federal
government. and the local lines by the
several state governments. Some have
opposed this dual ownership as imprac-
convinced me that it is entirely prac-
ticable. Nearly all the railroads Of Ger
many are owned by the several states.
lines, and yet the interstate traffic is
in no wise obstructed. In travelling from
Gonstantinople to Vienna one passes
gary and a part Of Austria without a
change Of cars. and yet each country
owns and operates its own roads, and
different languages are. spoken on the
different divisions OF the line. Sweden
and Norway each owns it's railroads, but
they. have no trouble about interstate
traffic. although their political relations
are somewhat strained. The ownership
and operations of the local lines by the
several state governments is not only
feasible. but it suits itself to the condi-
lions existing in it's various states. In
those states where the people are ripe
for a change. the local lines can be pur-
chased. or new lines 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 acquir-
ing of roads each state can act according
to the situation which it has to meet.
No Doubt of Government Power.
AS to the right of the governments, fed
eral and state. to own and operate rail-
roads there can be no doubt. IL we can
deepen the water in the lakes. and builo
connecting canals in order to cheaper
railroad transportation during half of the
year, we can build a railroad and cheap
en- rates the whole year; II we can spend
| canal to lower transcontinental rates, we
can build a railroad from New York to
San Francisco to lower both transconti-
mental and local rates. The United
| States mail is increasing so rapidly that
we shall soon be apie to pay the interest
on the cost of trunk lines out of the
money which we now pay to railroads for
carrying through mails. II 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 ap-
pealed to the fear of the more radica!
remedy Of government ownership, and
nothing will so restrain the railroad
| magnates from attempting to capture the
interstate m commission as the
same fear. The highhanded manner in
| which they have violated law, and tg-
| nored authority. together with the cor
ruption discovered in high places, had
done more to create sentiment in favor OF
| public ownership than all the speeches
and arguments of the opponents OF pr1-
vate ownership. / have referred to the
railroad question as part OF the trust
| that it is difficult to consider one without
the other.
Trusts a Political Development.
Just a word more in regard to the trusts.
| Some defend them on the ground that
| they are an economic development, and
that they cannot be prevented without
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
tinue. even though it did result in a net
economic gain. 1t is political, because II
rests upon the corporation. and the cor
| DOTatlOn rests upon d statutory .IOuIud-
ton. The trust, instead of being a natu-
| raj development, Is a form of legalized
larceny, and can exist only so long as
the a law permits adya TO eslsi in =p nna1 sdere on s
a large scale may be admitted; but be-
| cause a million yards Of cloth can be pro-
d ace t IN one on laef hunda re- thousand iDSsa pd'c Yards Pds
can be produced in the same factory. 1t
does not follow that cloth would be pro-
aHce sbs at cloth e stil co 1Hwea Rr' in P pee y nnIte d
States were produced in one factory or
under one management. There is a point
large production ceases. The moment an
industry approaches the position Of a mo
nopoly it begins to lose In economic eff
cheney, for a monopoly discourages inven-
ton. invites deterioration in quality, and
| destroys a most potent factor in produc-
ton, viz. Individual ambition. But the
political objections to a trust overcome
any economic advantage which it can pos
sibly have. No economic advantage can
justify an industrial despotism, or COM
pensate a nation for the loss of ~independ-
ence among its producers. Political lib
erty could not long endure under an in
dustrial system which permitted a few
of livelihood of the rest of the people.
LandIordism. the curse of Europe, is an
innocent institution in comparison with
the trust. when the trust is carried to its
logical conclusion. The man who argues
that there is an economic advantage in
private monopoly is aiding socialism.
oOCIAuSW anu 6GUICCTdCys
A socialist. asserting the economic SUI
periority Of the monopoly. insists that its
benefits shall accrue to the whole people.
and his conclusion cannot be denied If the
superiority of monopoly is admitted. The
democratic party, II l understand Its posi-
ton. denies the economic as well as the
political advantage of the private monop--
oily. and promises to oppose It wherever 1t
manifests itself. 1t offers, as an alterna-
tive. competition where competition Is
possible, and public monopoly wherever
| circumstance arc such as to prevent
competition. Socialism presents a consist
ent theory, but a theory which. in my
judgment, does M take human nature
into account. Its strength is in its at.
is confessed. Its weakness is that 1t
would substitute a new disease-if not a
worse one-for the disease from which we
suffer. The socialist is homes In the be-
lief that he has found a remedy for hui
man Ills. and he must answered with
argument, not with abuse The best way
abuses which have grown up under indi-
vidualism, but which are not a Necessary
part Of individualism. and the sooner the
remedy Is applied the better AS l was
leaving home l set forth my reasons for
opposing the socialist doctrine that the
government should W and operate all
the means OF production and transports.
ton; my observations during the past
year have strengthened my convictions on
that subject. Because l am anxious to
preserve individualism. / am earnest IN
my desire to see the trusts exterminated
root and branch, that the door of oppor-
tunity may be open to every American
citizen.
Federal Expenditures
On another occasion / shall call atten-
ton to the rapidly growing expenditures
of the federal government. 1t Is n,suraI
that those who look upon the taxation as
a blessing should view overgrown appro-
priations with competency, yet even the
desire to find ways. of spending the reve-
nues brought into the treasury BY a high