New-York tribune., 1918-12-20
This or Chaos

First the President said as TO the
railroads that. there were three courses
among which to choose, namely, (1) 4
return to former conditions, (2) gov
ernment ownership, or (S) private own-
ership and control under a new theory
OF government regulation. He added:
''The ore conclusion that l am ready
to state with confidence is that it would
be disservice alike to the country and
turn to The old conditions unmoditied.
Those are conditions OF restraint with
out Development
That was in his message TO Congress.
Ten days later Mr.. McAdoo, the re-
firing Director General of Railroads,
said
1--WE are now confronted with the
necessity either of legislatipg intelli-
gently about the railroad problem at this
session of Congress or of promptly re-
turning the railroads to their owners
MIR. McAdoo's necessity arose from
three assumptions, which were: First,
intelligently about the railroads in the
short time remaining to the Democratic
Congress; second, that it would be
catastrophe to return the railroads out
of hand, and third, that the government
could not successfully operate the roads
with everybody on notice that the ex-
pertinent would end two months after
the declaration Of peace. Therefore Mr..
McAdoo concluded thai the expiring
Congress, in the brief time yet avail
able for the exercise Of its Democratic
wisdom, should extend the time Of gov
ernment operation to the symmetrical
and convincing period Of five whole
years. Ia that time, according to Mr..
McAdoo, the railroad machine could be
much improved and enlarged and partly
rebuilt, with government credit, and at
the same time the merits of Federal
operation could be adequately tested.
Now comes the Assistant Director
General of Railroads, Mr.. Hines, warm
ly supporting Mr.. McAdoo's points and
adding some of his own. He asks us
TO think of the grave questions and is
sues that have to be answered and de-
cided. Shall there continue to be state
control in conflict with Federal control? ?
Are the railroads overcapitalized? If
SO, how shall the crime be expiated? Is
competition too wasteful? How can the
facilities of the railroads be pooled for
greater efficiency? What shall be done
$n
= with the antitrust laws?
Obviously, he argues, owing to con-
ditions unnamed, these things cannot be
settled now--at least, not right away
hence, it is imperative that Congress
shall decree five years of government
operation.
But why?
Mr.. Hines has apparently misunder-
stood the Director General According
to Mr.. McAdoo, government control OF
the railroads for five years would prove
conclusively whether Federal operation
could produce on the whole better results
than private operation. If fve-year
demonstration should prove the case for
government ownership, such questions as
now are raised by Mr.. Hines would be inn
material. II the demonstration should
prove the case against government own
ership, then the consideration of Mr..
Illness questions would merely have
been postponed for five years; because
of course, nobody is going to bother &c
work cut scheme of compromise be-
tween private ownership and govern
snent regulation while it has yet 70 be
decided whether the railroads are even
going to be restored TO their owners,
Mr.. McAdoo did not make (; good
oialectical case in favor Of continuing
government operation for five years Slr
Hines does Mr.. McAdoos case more
harm than good.
There is no valid reason why Con
yress should not attack the railroad
problem now-at once. What had not
been finished by March 4 could be re-
sunled Immediately in special session.
There is no valid reason why the Di-
rector General of Railways should not
summon representatives of all the par
ties at interest and evolve alternative
plans to be laid before Congress.
He says the railroads cannot continue
to be operated efficiently under the law
by which they wee seized, yet he does
not suggest how that law should be
amended.
Sc ssyA it would De 9 eatAstsopAs t.
sess,xs sh&& - tasix aazs.s T!!sshoRs