The Johnson City comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1916-1917, 1916-09-07
THE RAILROAD PROBLEM
(Nashvi3e Banner)


has always been opposed by the best
business sense OF The country, and it
is not at all desirable.
Americans do not like paterralsm
in government. They prefer the old
Jeflersoni4n idea of individual. free
dom with the government discharg-
ing the simple function of preserving
order and insuIing justice. Equal
rights for all and special priFlc scs
for none.
They like, too, freedom for INDUS
trial and business activity opportun-
tiles for enterprise, for investment
for fortune building and the inalirit-
ing influence of fair competition. So
cialism makes no appeal to the tlpi-
cal American and is out OF accord
with the active Individuality Of the
American temperament.
Government ownership of railroads
would mean, most likely, that the
roads would be clunsily managed al
a loss instead of being large source
of public revenue, as they no ware
and their conduct would become d
matter of politics rather than bust
ness.
These facts have made the sound
business sense Of the American peo-
pie ayerse to government ownership
of railroads. The only ground on
which the theory ever had any sup
port was that corporate greed and
spectators deyiltry might make it
necessary in order TO protect public
rights. But a way was found to avoid
thes eeyils by bringing the railroads
under control of government and
state commissions. They are public
utilities, closely associated with the
public welfare, and on the theory that
they are quasi public institutions they
are subjected to strict government
regulation.
But now comes another source of
trouble respecting the operation OF
be no legal control. The railroad EN-
ployes can, by refusing to work, and
through agencies that prevent others
from taking their places, tie up trans
portation and thereby entail great
hardship and loss on all tlasses.
They may, if they choose, make ar
bitrary demands which they refuse to
have in fair way adjusted. Whether
or not the demands now made by the
trainmen can be So classed is not hers
considered. But ii is possible, nder
present conditions, to make arbitrary
demands, and that is possibn.ty
fraught with peril to the public veal
By increased demands for higher
wages the railroad employees can force
higher rates for travel and freight
transportation that tn epublic must
pay. They can, in other words, force
on the public that extortion that rail
road regulation, through commission,
was instituted to prevent.
This again raises the question If
government ownership of railroads.
If the public, it may be argued, has
no protection against this kind Of
wrong the government must under
take to control and operate the rail
roads on its own account. But is that
necessarily true? II these quasi pub
lie institutions are of such charac-
ter that the government has a right
to fix their charges and otherwise
regulate their affairs, to inhibit pur-
chases and prevent consolidation, 10
forbid them from engaging in any bus
mess aside from the conduct of the
roads, ca nit not also look after their
expenses. In short has not the gov
eminent as much right to fix wages
paid railroad employees as it has to
fix passenger rates and charges for
carrying freight? If it is going to
regulate one, even justice requires
that it control the other.
This, of course, would apply 90 all
classes Of employees. presidents. super
intendcnts. etc, as well as those who
belong to the labor unions 1t would
likely meet strong objection, but It
seems to be the only solution of p
very troublesome problem, one that
must be settled TO protect the public
welfare and to preserve the nation
from possible peril.
1t is that or government ownership
and government ownership can hard
ly be under any conditions consider
ed. TIL equestion of expense in TAX
ing owe the vast railroad properties
would alone prevent it,
There seems to be doubt and hest
fancy on the part of men eminent In
both political parties of the practl-
cality of compulsory arbitration, but
M ayhitrafiap unuld ha paouirad IL