Bisbee daily review., 1919-01-01
GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP


 The success of government owner ship would depend in part upon the temperament of the official immedi- ately in control, upon his whims. That is one reason why many people hesi- tate to embark upon government own ership. There is one town in this country where doubtless this hesita- tion is quite pronounced. That is Houston, Texas, where the citizens have had some experience with the temperament of Postmaster General Burleson, though himself Texan.
 Under his authority. as director of the telegraph and telephone systems of the country, the postmaster gen eral ordered that telephone rates be advanced to s for residence phones and s75O for business phones. The authorities of Houston protested and refused their assent. Thereupon. the postmaster general notified them that if they did not agree to the advances he had proposed, he would arbitrarily impose still greater ones-for resi- dence phones, s3.5O instead of $3 and for business phones, $9 instead of S75O. This threat reminds us some what of Prussianism, something of the methods of von Bissing. in dealing with the Belgians.
 Doubtless the postmaster general has authority to prescribe the charges which shall be made for telephone service. The government assumed al financial responsibility in taking con trol of the telephone lines and with the liability it must have derived the authority to safeguard itself against loss. But has the postmaster general legal or moral authority to penalize people for not being as obedient as he thinks they ought to be?
 If the government, in the opinion of NIT. Eurleson, could safeguard itself against loss by the figures. that is the advances, he first proposed, the fig ures which he threatened, would rep resent extortion, which the private owners of the telephone system would not have dared to try to exercise and which public utilities commissions would not have allowed them to ex- ercise. The difference between the figures proposed and the figures the postmaster general threatened. in a city the size of Houston. would repre- sent large sum of money and would be regarded as a fine placed upon the municipality for having refused meek ly to submit to the order of the post master general. The people of north ern France and Belgium within the last four years have had great deal of experience with this sort of thing.
 The Galveston News. commenting on this inciden; says: ''The facts pre- sent a luminous case of bureaucracy. The surprising circumstance is that it should have been allowed to pre- sent itself while the question of gov ernment ownership of telephone lines is under consideration, for it rises as a warning of one of the inevitable consequences of government owner ship. No community would have a voice or authority in determining the rates it shall pay; they would be de l termined in Washington by some one | in no degree answerable to those upon whom the charges would fall as tax, and any obstreperousness on the part of the community would incur a fine as a vindication of the bureau crscy's dignity.
 "It is doubtful if the evils of bureau cracy are separable from government ownership. They seem to be ineyi
 tably a price to be paid for whatever
 bSh1iils may DS ueiiNou nun 5"'i
 ment ownership. Can the benefits be
 worth the price? The postmaster gen
 eral. while preaching the beauties oi government ownership of telephone
 lines. with singular fatuity, has giver ? a most signal demonstration Of OnC ; of its eyils."-Arizona Republican.