The labor standard., 1919-09-01

year are now n0oOeQ TOT ralIWay Qo-
 velopment, and no plan of straight
 government guarantees and backing
 will provide this capital. And such
 guarantees really imply government
 regulation practically equivalent to
 government operation which but few
 enthusiasts believe practicable for
 America at least at present. Here is
 where the railways stand now. Gov
 ernment ownership plus operation
 would mean the "pork barrer, and
 greatly intensified Hog rolling" for
 local, developments and extensions,
 national point of view or not, would be
 the inevitable outcome.
 Under a plan of government oWn-
 ership and private operation, the Rail
 the the Interstate Commerce Commission
 and put the expense of railway devel-
 opments and extension on the locali- ties or regions benefited, thus elimi- hating political dissipations.
 The efficiency of private ownership
 in utilizing and developing desirable waterways of the country is zero, or a minus quantity. "Who killed the waterway?" said the Railway "I killed the waterway. With cut-throat competition, killed the waterway" '" MT. Lewis takes up this important fac tor in railway efficiency at some length, and proves conclusively that public ownership makes of socially needed waterways and railways a comprehensive, united system and that private ownership prevents and detsroys desirable water transporta- tion On all five points of the investi- gation under this sixth factor of rail way efficiency, the verdict of interna- tional statistics, our own railway his tory, and common knowledge, demon strates the greater efficiency of pub lie 1ysr priyate ownsrship; %si ;z +ha vail,
 efficiency with respect to it's influence on the development of the State itself, in it's readiness and ability in meet ing great military emergencies, in it's ganized civic bodies, in it's ability to prevent railway strikes, and in avoid ing political control. Here again the record is clear and strong in favor of public ownership. MT. Lewis says on this point in a condensation of his re- marks: 'The orderly functioning of the, State raises the question of poii- ties. Some politicians fear sincerely enough that the railways will get into politics But what the greater mum Der of them fear is, that the railways will get out of politics. They have been using the national highways as their camels to ride into office for gen. erations."
 The railways have never been out of politics, not only in the national Congress but in every state of the Union. Even public ownership and operation together which has been shown to be superior in several coun- tries to our private ownership and operation, would be preferable here to any plan of continuance of this sys- tenn yet devised. Public ownership plus public, operation has in some countries developed political control, but such control is not inherent Tn public ownership nor is public opera tion essential to it. A plan of public ownership and private operation under a we'll safeguarded lease has been de- vised by labor which practically elimi- mates political control and which would thus be far better than either private ownership and operation or state ownership and operation. Rail way politics have eaten away at the heart of our national life for so many years that we have become unobserv- ant of the rottenness resulting there from. In the reconstruction period now upon us we should free ourselves from this curse which places diff culty in the way of our making de- mocracy safe for ourselves and the world. The whole Relationship of the State to private corporation or med functions is a false and unjust one, promoting the degredation and injury of both parties. A lease of the gov ernment roads to private corpora tion without capital and interested only in operation is another relation ship entirely.
 So far as private ownership meeting military emergencies goes, we need say but little. The principal weapon of our enemy was the highly organ ized and efficient railways of the Gen. tral Powers. The, roads of Great Britain soon broke down and failed to function. They had to be taken over by the Government in the military were not built and prepared for real success. Our railways likewise utter ly failed in our emergency. General Joffre said that "the battle of the Marne was won by the railways of France. This is a railway war;" But Peace needs efficient railways as we'll as war and only public ownership can in times of peace prepare for railway war. Such unifcation, standardiza- tion, and development as would be de- sirable for war would make the roads more effective for peace.
 On the other phases of this stand ard, MT. Lewis finds that the argu- ment is in favor of public ownership.
 On the other phases of this stand ard, MT. Lewis finds that the argu- ment is in favor of public ownership.
 In final conclusion, he meets the usual arguments against public own ership and says:
 Railway transportation is natur- ally national in it's characteristics. It is governmental in it's requirement of the sovereign power of eminent do- main, in it's use of the taxing power to levy taxes, discriminating taxes, to se-