New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-12-17
from the news summary OF
the statement made 1--WE

i the statement Hioo"
weeks ago by William J. Bryan
before the Newlands Committee
il might easily have been IN
| ferred that he had changed his
mind about government owner
ship of railroads since the speech
he made at Madison Square Car
den ten years ago advocating
government trunk lines. In fact,
( however. he is Of the same opin-
ion still. He has deep misgivlngs
about government ownership at
all. Its dangers fill him with un-
casiness. On the other hand, he
is pessimistic about alternative
solutions of the railroad prob
lem.
His Madison Square Garden
speech caused Wall Street some
troubled nights. Finance was
not then accustomed TO the
thought Of government owner
ship on any terms. The thought
is now very familiar. The apex
of the idea presented by Mr.:
Bryan in 1906 and the essential
part of his recent statement be-
fore the Newlands Committee
may be compared in the text that
follows:
19O6-From Madison Square
Garden speech:
To me dangerous Capitalization Is
a danger that cannot be brushed
aside. The greatest danger Of Re-
public is the consolidation Of all
rover at the Capitol, remote from
the people. And because | believe
that the ownership of all railroads by
the Federal government would so
centralize power as to virtually OBJ
lIterate state lines, instead Of favor
ing the Federal ownership Of all the
railroads ! favor Federal ownership
o. the trunk lines only, and the state
ownership of all the rest Of the rail-
roads.
1916-Stdtement before New-
lands Committee:
As to government ownership, /
believed for a number Of years that
it was inevitable, and inevitable only
because the railroads will not con-
sent to effective regulation, and |
think it is now some ten years since
/ had occasion 10 say that unless our
experience with the railroads was
different from our experience with
municipal corporations, the people,
for their own protection, would be
compelled to take charge Of the rail-
roads. Our experience with mu-
nicipal corporations has been this;
that the men who own the franchise
have so large a pecuniary interest
that they are always alert and
watching; while the individual cltl-
zen has so small an interest, rela-
lively, that he is not so alert or so
watchful, and the result has been
that in cities of any size the people
holding the franchise have felt that
il was necessary for them to control
the election of councilmen, or who
ever have the authority, in order to
protect their interest; and some of
YOU may have heard the argument
made that they do not want to enter
politics, but they have TO enter it in
order TO protect themselves from the
demagogue; and may add that the
first time this was presented in an
official way by any high authority
this matter Of national incorporation
Il remember that the president Of
q railroad, whose railroad had, only
a short time before, been found by
en- investigating committee TO have
three times as much capitalization
as it had property, gave out an IN
teryiew indorsing national corpora
ton, and the reason ne gave was
that it was the only way the rail
roads could protect themselves from
the demagogues in the legislature;
and that is the argument given IN
the cities--that they must protect
themselves from sand-baggers and
demagogues, but the result is cor
ruption, and the cities have been
forced to take over their franchises
for the protection Of their people,
not only the economic protection,
but the political protection.
Now, ! said that unless our expe-
gience with the railroads was differ
emit we would have TO do the same
thing for the same reasons, and the
effort that is now being made 10
secure a revolutionary change and
the effort made not in the interest
Ct better regulation, but to avoid the
regulation Of the states, is simply an
Illustration Of what | meant when
said the people would, for their own
protection, be compelled TO take these
railroads over; and my opinion is