The Kevin review. [volume] (Kevin, Mont.) 1922-1929, 1924-11-20
Federal
RAIL OWNERSHIP
Government Operation Would
Mean Increased Taxation for
General Public, Says Rail Head.

Opposition to Government owner
ship of the railroads, not because Of
the interests of the present owners
but rather because OF the burdens and
disadvantages the change would i'm.
pose upon the people as a whole, was
expressed by G. H Markham, presi.
dent of the Illinois Central Railroad,
in an address before the recent con-
yention of the American Bankers AS.
ISOLATION.
1--WE have never favored Govern.
ment ownership as a national policy"
Mr.. Markham said. IF the railroads
are taken over by the Government,
we must face the fact that the big
step in reversing our old and Settled
policy will be taken. If there is no
particular reason why the Govern.
ment should not own and run the
railroads, is there any reason why it
should not take over also the banks,
the stores, the factories, the farms,
until all of us are Government en-
ployees and the ideal of the soviet is
attained? The railroads are the first
line of defense against those who
would make this country a second
Russia.
s'The railroads have about 100000
employees, approximately as many
employees as there are in all the Gov
eminent services Federal, State,
county and municipal-put together.
If the railroads are taken owe by the
Government, there will be one Gov
eminent employee Out of every ten
wage earners in the country, instead
of one out of every twenty, as at
present.
Doubling Taxation
"Then, too, there is the matter Of
taxation. The railroads, under pri-
yate ownership, are among our heav-
lest taxpayers. Last year they paid
taxes amounting to SO for every man,
woman and child in the country. In
some counties, particularly in the Mid
die West, the railroads pay from 10
per cen to nearly so per cent of the
taxes collected. Under Government
ownership. the railroads would be no
more subject to taxation than the
pest offices now are. In some way
the Government would have to make
up the difference Of So a head for
every person in the country. In many
counties the taxes on the re-
naming property would have to be
nearly doubled. The result would be
an unbearable burden that might
force many of our local governments
to stop payments on their bonds and
go into bankruptcy. The tax prob
lem would be a great deal more vexa-
tious than it is today.
''Then, too, the acquisition of the
railroads would add more thar twenty
billion dollars to our national debt.
If Government railroads in this coun-
try were no more successful than
they are elsewhere today in the
the interest on that twenty bill
lions of purchase price would be the
cause for additional burdens IN the
taxpayers left to cairy it. AS the tax
developed, it would not be
surprising to see other industries well
Government ownership for
themselves. They would gain i'm
nunity from taxation in turn, and
heir owners probably would be pro-
.ected from loss. The Constitution
the confiscation Of private
property, and Government ownership
an be accomplished only by paying a
air price for the properties taken
,ver.
Bad for Public
81 do not oppose Government own
,rship of the railroads on behalf Of
he present owners of the railroads,
nany of whom would obtain safety in
Government bonds in return for Sc
which have not paid a re-
urn in years. | oppose Government
,wnership of the railroads because |
,eIieve that it would be bad for our
eople as a whole. 1t would open the
to Government ownership OF
verything, and at the same time it
7ould certainly lead to the wrecking
f our highly essential railway SER
ice. if the lessons of experience Of
cred by other nations mean anything /
t all to u.s." !