Year: 1873

II the Hoosac Tunnel bill reported by the
minority of the Railway Committee in the
Massachusetts House of Representatives, should
become n law-and it really seems as II 1t
mipbt-one of the most interesting expert
ments in railroad management would nave
fair trial under tolerably favorable clrcum-
stances. The bill, which has been substituted
for one submitted by the majority, and has
passed TO third reading by large vote,
embodies tho principle argued by Mr.. Adams
before the Committee in an elaborate Speech
of which we printed the substance some
weeks ago. 1t is commonly spoken of rs the
scheme of State ownership, but it is some
thing more than that. 1t Is an attempt
to establish three parallel competing routes or
through travel, one of which shall be owned
by the State, and the others by private corpor-
ations. Combination it is supposed in such
case would be impossible. The State road and
the private roads would act as perpetual checks
and stimulalts to each other, and the puDhc
would get the maximum of accommodation at
the minimum remunerative rates. The bill
provides for the acquisition by the Common
wealth of the connecting roads which are 10
give direct route from Boston to the West
by way of the HOosac Tunnel now rapidly
approaching completion. North of that line
there is q system of competing roads by the
Albany route, ard south of it there Is another
by way of New-Ilaven. If Mr.. Adamss project
we call it his, because he is its best known
advocate in this country, though he Is lot It's
inyentor-if Mr.. Adamss project is to be tried
at all, it could not be tried under more aus
piciOus conditions.


We are by no means sanguine, however.
that the solution of the railway problem is to
be found in this device One of the worst
features of the transportation difficulty is the
interference of the railroad interest in poll
tics. Legislation cannot control the roads,
because the roads buy the Legislatures, cor
rupt the suffrage, and in extreme cases are
able even to own the courts. The principle OF
State competition gives the companies fresh
inducements to pursue the same mischievous
course, and better opportunities for accom-
plishing their purpose. Cannot q railway
commissioner be bought as easily as State
Senator or o judgef What becomes of the
checks and stimulants if the rival corporations
are in league with the State Oflicialsi QuiS
cuStOdiet custOdes?


This is one view of the case, and the most

serious one. But there are many other diff
cultes also. Experience in this country has
given us no cause to contide in the Govern
ment management Of matters of business.
Whatever we do by Government agents is
done badly. The Post-0ifice Department is q
scandal to American capacity. The Navy
builds ships that cannot sail at cost which
ought to make the Secretary blush. The de-
partments at Washington are managed in the
most extravagant manner. The custom-houses
are filed with clerks whom no merchant would
employ, even at the meanest wages. The City
of New York has never succeeded, after years
of strenuous effort, in cleaning its own streets.
Indeed the railways, with all their abuses, are
managed moro economically, more efficiently,
and we might even say more honestly, than
any Government undertaking whatever, if we
except some few special works of a scientific
character. State ownership of the railways
would be likely to lower the standard Of rail-
way service while it increased the demoraliza-
ton of the average official conscience.