Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1914-06-12
Dead Hand OF State In Public
Ownership.
From the Baltimore News.

From the Baltimore News.
Great Britains experience with Govern
ment ownership Of telegraphs and tele-
phones, which cOnfessedly has been an
unhappy one and which shows some very
discouraging signs Of getting worse instead
of better does not buttress the position Of
those who plead for this country to EN-
bark in the same experiment.
According to an extended article in the
London Spectator, the Postoffice Depart
ment now frankly admits that Government
operation of teleeraphs is "a complete
financial failure" and the Spectator finds
that operation Of the telephone lines is likely
soon to reach the same condition. The
latest reports show a small and steadily
decreasing return on the investment. ac-
companied by general and vigorous criti
cism Of the quality Of the service. The net
loss OF revenue amounts to 100000 a
year, as compared with the era Of private
ownership. and there is of course an enOr-
nous addition to the national debt.
But the Spectator sees another danger
the menace of the dead hand" Of official
dom throttling the inventive genius Of fu-
ture generations. 1t says
Doubtless the enthusiasts for State en-
terprise will still defend the operation on
the ground that the Postoffice is able TO
give better service to the public than the
National Telephone Company used to do.
We can only reply that this statement ig-
nores almost universal experience. Though
undoubtedly the official administrators of
the Postoffice telephone service are at pres
ent doing their best. it would be ridiculous to
assert that they are giving general salts
faction. Moreover, it may easily happen
that in few years time we shall be faced
with the same difficulty as arose when
the telephone itself was invented The
Postoffice then attempted to crush the new
invention because ii interfered with the
telegraph monopoly. II is within the realm
of possibility that system of wireless
telephony may be perfected, and then we
may be quite sure that the dead hand"
of the State will again be brought down to
prevent the development Of the new inven-
ton because of the amount of State CAPT
tai invested in the existing system.
Apart. indeed. from the question of eff
cient administration, there is this enOr-
nous advantage in private enterprise. tina
only private capital is risked thereby. The
private investor is essentially an Optimist.
Whenever any new idea comes along he
is willing to put his money into it. and to
take the risk of loss as an Offset against
the hope Of gain. If an improvement is
invented. he alone bears the loss, and
the community doubly gains. 1t gains
by the use which ii had out of his
capital while that was rendering efficient
service. and it gains by the readiness of
other capitalists to give new service in
a more efficient form"
Certainly the experience of Great Britain
with Government ownership has not been
Of a character to tempt the United States
to rash experiment. In this country it
would have further complications, includ-
ing those that spring from mere size-the
tremendous mileage Of wire and the many
thousands of plants that would have to
be taken over there are political consd-
erations, too, that ought to give us pause.
After all. the question is whether Gov
eminent ownership really promises cheaper
and better service than private ownership
There is no such promise in the experience
of Great Britain there the dead hand"
already is at work.