, 1924-10-22

~ Allt GIAulleIlH III LllS
campaign one of the most forcible
and clear-cut statements relating to
ownership of public utilities that
has ever been given to the people.
1t is his Judgment that if all the
matters relating to public owner
ship are candidly and dispassionatelv
discussed. the employees of public
utilities and the public generally
would decide the question Alright.
In this respect he says:
1T is for the American people to
decide. If they are to decide right
ly they should have the reasons set
out before them in terms of sober
economic and social thought. moi in
Ttuperation and appeals to hate.
| accredit the sincerity of the advo-
Gates of these propositions and 1
believe they have the manhood to
credit ours. There is but one con-
~sideration. the public interest. If
! believed for one moment that this
adventure would reduce rates, that
II would produce better service, that
1t would decrease taxes, that il
would benefit the employees, that it
would maintain discovery, initiative.
and advance in the development of
The service, that it would not wreck
our democracy, that it would
strengthen the foundation of social
and spiritual progress in America, or
even that it would do a few of these
things, l would unhesitatingly ac-
cept this proposal, ~stupendous as it
is.
But l don't believe it. am
convinced not only by the expert
ments of u country, but from the
attempts made abroad, that gov
eminent operation is a step made
backward in every one of these pro-
positions"
He quotes LaFollette's own words.
Il am for the government owner
ship of railroads and every otiie'
public utility-every onei" Then
he states concisely the burden of
expense hat it would be necessary
for the people to assume and gives
the number of additional employees
that would appear on the govern
ment payrolls.
What the senator proposes is
far more than a transitory expert
ment of government in business.
1t is a change in our social econ
omical and political principles ritat
will react to revolutionize our gov
eminent itself. In it's immediate
form this is a proposition that the
government should buy and run the
railways, electrical n other util-
tiles valued by official commissions
at about $40. 900 900 900 with O.
100000 employees. requiring 49,.
900 900 900 annually for bond in
%terest, with an operating budget of
$4,000, 900 900 per annum. To keep
pace with natural growth these con-
Germs must spend 50, 900 900 900 of
new capital yearly for extensions.
This is a financial transaction and a
venture into business of a magni-
tude neve before undertaken by
any man or any government, dem
ocratic or otherwise, except in Rus
STA. Surely before we embark into
such a voyage we should look into
the possibility of profit, examine
the chart of the place where we are
going and consider the capacity IF
our government to carry the cargo
70 the average reasonable mind
it is i-nconceiyable that such a stu
pendous amount of property could
be taken over by the people of the
United States in any other manner
thru coniiscation as has been
done in Russia. What would this
mean and who would it benefit?
Possibly those who would be on the
government payroll. AS long as the
confiscated wealth lasted they would
be in clover, but how long would
it last? In the Russian experiment
il lasted less than two years. Sec
Hoover states that by the ma
tionalization of all public utilities
the number of government employees
would be increased by six millions,
and ne adds: THE voting strength
of this mass of office holders, their
wives, and dependents will be over
per cent of the whole. 1t is the
balance of political power between
parties. In every district either
every member of the legislative
will be elected to the bidding
Of this bureaucracy, or will be elect
ed 10y a public in rebellion against
it,"
Then Secretary Hoover briefly
sketches experiments of European
governments with operation of trans
p]ortation lines. He says that there
is not a govcrnment-owned railway
sy stem in the world that can com
fayorabiy with the best pri
vately-owned and operated line in
country. Cut rates per mile
lower, our service is better, and
the average pay of railway employ
es is higher.
There are interesting matters in
address as to the result in other