The Paducah evening sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1906-1929, 1908-09-07


Roosevelt borrowed his policies fnom
Mr.. Bryan that they havescone 70 be-
lieye that this is true. For the MGR
nation of readers who wish to know
the truth. we give here a condensed
chapter of recent American history.
Something like forty years ago,
Senator Booth, of California. put the
railway problem in a sentence 1--WE
quote from memory: Formerly the
means of. transportation were poor,
but the tighways were free; now
the means of transportation are ad-
mirable, but the highways are pri-
vate property" How to have high
ways administered as private proper
ty for the public welfare Is the rail-
way problem OF the United States.
At first the states took 1t up.
State legislatures attempted to regu-
late railway rates. State railway
commission we're appointed; some
with authority, some without. One
of the earliest OF these commissions
was that of Massachusetts, in 1869.
The legislation was experimental. Of
ten crude, sometimes partially eff
fective. sometimes wholly disastrous.
But the rrinelple9l legislative regula-
ton OF the public highways for the
public benefit. was gradually getting
Itself established in the American
mind. and in time this public convic-
ton reached congress. In 1887 the
Reagon- Cullom bill was enacted. II
forbade discrimination and provided
for an interstate railway commission.
Mr.. Reagan was a Democrat from
Texas. Mr.. Cullom was a Reubli-
can from Illinois. The bill was
thus not sectional; II was not parti-
san; it was the expression OF a ma
tional conviction adopted after TWEEN
ty-five years of public agitation. Mr..
Bryan was a young man twenty-sev-
en- years OF age, practicing law In
illinois; Mr.. Roosevelt, two years
his senior. had just been defeated
as the Republican candidate for the
mayoralty of New York City. Neither
/ of them was national figure;
neither OF them had been heard by
the American people on the railway
problem.
The Reagan-Cullom bill. like all
| compromises, was an inadequate
measure. The courts. constituting II
strictly. made II by their interpreta-
tions still more inadequate. The
railway managers insisted on regard
inc tha bfobu,a~, rs Drfvafa nronar-
ity TO be operated for private profit.
To give favored rates to favored ship
lpers was the custom, almost the uni-
lversal. custom. The protestants were
few and the protests were futile.
The result was inevitable. The ia
vored shippers crowded their unfortu
nate comIttitors to the wall. A
small advantage in freights was suf-
lficient to give its possessor a practi-
cal monopoly. The rich grew richer
II the poor did not grow poorer.
Multi-millionaires appeared in in
creasing numbers and with rapidly
increasing wealth during all this per-
iod of increasing railway develop
ment under private corporate con-
troll. Wrote James Bryce in 1888:
THE most remarkable phenomenon
. of the last twenty-five years has been
the appearance not only of those few
colossal millionaires who fill the pub
lie eye. but of many milionaires OF
the second order. men with fortunes
ranging from $1,000, 900 to SIS. 600
000." In a single graphic sentence
he portrayed the social peril: 'No
spot in Europe conveys an equal i'm
preston of the lust In the eyes and
the pride of life. of boundless wealth
and a boundless desire for enjoy
ment, as does the Ocean Drive at
Newport on an afternoon in August"
In another equally significant SEN
tenee he indicated the political per-
!; lis: 1.-The influence OF money Is one
of the dangers which the people
have always toniguard against, for
il assails not merely the Legislature
but the party machinery. and its
methods are as momentous as they
are insidious.'
In his famous "cross of gold"
speech before the Democratic con.
vention in 1896 Mr.. Bryan effective.
ly expressed the popular discomfort
and the popular apprehension. But
his diagnosis OF the cause OF the
plutocrats' power was the gold stand
ard; the remedy which he prescribed
was free silver. The railway prob
I lem received from him scant atten-
ton. In his letter of acceptance all
that he had to say about II was the
following. s.nsmoW
| The right OF the United States gov
eminent to regulate interstate COM
merce cannot be questioned. and the
/ necessity for the vigorous exercise
, of that right is becoming more and
more imperative. The interests Of
OF the whole people require such an
enlargement of the powers OF the
4 interstate commerce commission as
will enable II to prevent discrimina-
tion between persons and places
and protect patrons from unreasono
able charges
This statement was entirely cor
rect, but 1t was only a statement OF
what both parties stood for in pre-