Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1914-02-12
NEWS FROM THE FRONT.

government take over the ownership
if the telegraph and telephone lines OF
the country, oftimes cite the govern
ment owned system in England and
hold it up as shining example for
Americans to follow. Postmaster
General Bur!eson is heart and soul
with these reformers and wants the
wires Of the country-telephone and
|telegraph--made an adjunct to the
postal service In view of these facts
a little news from the front is not
aniss. The London Daily Mail OF
Friday, Jan. 2, 1914 says:
Why is it that government owner
ship and management of the telephone
lis practically always failure? Why
is it that for every thousand Europeans
there is only one telephone, while for
every thousand Americans there are
Is? Why is it that the country which
has done most to improve the tele-
phone, both technically and commerce.
ally, and to popularize it's use is the
country in which its operation and
development have been and still are
Exclusively the work of private enter
prise? Why is it that not one of the
|innumerable discoveries that have
transformed the telephone industry in
the last 30 years has emanated from
department Of state; that European
governments have been the last to
adopt them, and that the verdict which
experts are obliged to pass upon them,
with perhaps two partial exceptions.
is that they have not learned their
business? Why is it that there are
great and famous towns in Europe at
this moment where methods and ma
chinery that were abandoned 20 years
ago in America are still in use? Why
is it that Throughout the length and
breadth Of Great Britain and the con-
tinent hardly single efficient long
distance service is to be found? Why
is it that in New York one can invari-
ably get the number one wants, and
get 1t at once. while in London one has
often to wage prolonged and en-
differing battle with a slow operator,
insufficient lines, and conversation
If any conversation ensues-that is
only audible when it is interrupted?
The broad answer to all these ques-
tons is that the alertness and enter
prise that are essential to telephone
development can not be expected from
government department. The char
acteristics Of the bureaucratic mind
and temperament forbid it. The organ
ization of government Office, with a
virtually irremovable staff. forbids 1t.
The spirit Of officialdom. with it's tradi-
lions OF subordination. its narrow
professional outlook, it's unwillingness
to concentrate responsibility, Its in
sensible sitting Of initiative, forbids
it. A government department. can not
raise and discipline its staff to the
same level of efficiency as CONNER
cial company It can not act with the
same freedom and directness as pri-
vate board It can not pursue bust
ness object without Difference to hun
dred influences and considerations that
have nothing to do with business. It
can not advertise with anything like
the same holiness. 1t naturally seeks
efficiency through economy instead OF
economy through efficiency. 1t has to
think of politics and political reactions.
It's whole constitution prevents 1t from
proving as enterprising as private In
itative, as prompt to discard obsolete
methods and apparatus, as quick to
adopt new inventions. as skillful and
aggressive in gathering in sub
scribers.
As we all know, to our cost. We have
government ownership and operation
Of the telephones in Great Britain. We
shall never have a telephone system
worthy of the name SO long as the
post Office remains in undivided and
despotic control Sooner or later that
authority must be modified or dele
gated if our telephone system is ever
to attain an even passable standard Of
efficiency.