The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1918-12-22
nv T1IicoI

rFro.a the New York Evening POST
The editor of the Evening Post has
asked IRE to write an article upon Inc
railways under government manage-
rnent. am glad to comply with the
request, blu; In SO doing IL is perhaps
proper for me Ia say that l approach
the subject with a conviction born
Of long study that uniiication OF the
American railway system has become
I'M only way to resolve the many
complex problems that confront both
thesrasiway owners and the public In
the United States.
Theoretically II Ia debata BILE wheth-
- the best results can be secured
u1def private or governmental con-
trO1 but practically no such choice
can BE- made. We live under
democracy which. despite It's faults,
nrne OF Us would exchange for an
autocracy. and majority of the peo-
ME are and probably always vii! he
opposed to the creation of privately
owned monopoiies
IN SO far as the railways are con-
cerned. this opposition IS especially
determined. for il is perhaps more
true Of corporations than of indiFid-
nails that society is disposed TO visit
the sin OF the fathers upon the chill
dren and assume that railroad will
awaye be predatory because most
railroad managers used to he unscru-
r3Ibus politically IL not in their treat
naent OF the public As a matter Of
MHtice. it must be admitted that the
~0ktcai standards Of railroad business
hAve been greatly advanced within
the last decade. but. granting this,
most students of political conditions
ID this country will admit that within
the present generation 1T would have
been impossible to secure legislative
authority or judicial sanction for
consolidation or combination Of the
American railways under private or
sven quasi private control
sAs Il Is. congress could only be in
Aveed to grant the president the tenn
p4rary control of the railroads thar
~ al present exercises through the
director general as a war measure,
and everyone Is now asking whether
that control will be continued more
than twenty-one months after peace
shail have been re-establlshed
An answer to this question is i'm
possible, and shall not attempt IL
The director general is admin ister-
ing the law az 1t written, leaving
nnhlic opinion upon the question of
government versus private control to
shape itself. 1t liz. however. only fair
10 point out that the Limitations OF the
statute, and especially the provision
which contem plates the return Of the
railway properties to their owners
f~enty-on months after pence, make
il impossible to undertake many ini-
movements that would greatly in
crease efficiency and reduce the cost
~ operation for wears to come
Ill Is. however. doubtful whether
ikuSs who own the properties with de-
sire TO take them back at the end OF
the prescribed period even if the peo-
ME arc willing that they should be
returned
A contemplation Of the financial
decentralization that would have oc-
curred II the government had not
stepped in to avert it on the list OF
January, 1918. is likely 70 make the
thoughtful owners OF railway securf-
ties hesitant about again placing
themselves between the Scyila OF
regulatory railway commissions and
7tths GhEry bdis. of ;5txtser Unions pos
sesstpE the inesess~1 rawssrA tsat tbes
.ysew exercise sss
II has been demonstrated that the
public are not unwilling to pay higher
rates X they are assured tina, the in
creased revenues will be eeaitabiy dis
tributed among the employees through
The agencies of government, but n Ia
exceedingly doubtful whether the
present advance in charges or any
further advance that may be neccs-