Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Sept. 21, 1906)
' 4,T irfjjn,, f A n, ism The Commoner. 5 "Tjjf Jipwiu-v t- 5j, an?,,; fj' .n fv Jw IrafJll K, ?iw mr. mn BRrAN AND GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP 3B$X! I-MM' 'n ntjitnmnnt n.t T-oulRvIlln with ro- &wfaO$mi . position on go.vernmont ownership rtrlrnealncr mvoolf f rtfViow mihlnnta ksrawlsh to discuss. I bee your indulgence iiVnresent n. Htn.lfiTr.onf-. In rocnril in nno r '.', --- . 0. .w vw concerning which my attitude has, to .extent, been misrepresented. y speech at the New York reception I o remarks concerning the government p-of railways and I thought that I had jed myself so clearly that my position ot bo misconstrued even by those who to misconstrue it. The Now York was prepared in advance. It was not only , but it was carefully revised. It stated what I wanted to state and I have noth- l withdraw or modify in the statement there- de. What I say tonight is rather in the e of an elaboration of the ideas therein pre- d. 'After quoting from the democratic platform RfllOO that "a private monopoly is indefensible h(frintolerable," and after laying it down as a h-4..j' ,, j.1 11. 1.1 i,i 'principle uiai puunc ownersnip snoum Degin ""Where competition ends and that the people should have the benefit of any monopoly that might be found necessary, I stated that I had reached the conclusion "that railroads partake bo much of the nature of a monopoly that they must ultimately become public property and be .managed by public officials in the interests of the whole community." I added: "I do not know that the country is ready for this legislation. I do not know that the majority of my own party favors it, but I believe that an increasing number of the members of all parties see in public own ership a sure remedy for discrimination between persons and places and for the extortionate rates lor the carrying of freight and passengers." I then proceeded to outline a system of pub lic ownership whereby the advantages of public ownership might be secured to the people without the dangers of centralization. This system con templates federal ownership of the trunk lines only and the ownership of local lines by the sev eral states. I further expressed it as my opinion that the railroads themselves were -responsible for the growth of the sentiment in favor of public ownership and said that, while I believed that the rate bill recently enacted should be given a fair trial, we might expect to see the railroads still more active in politics unless our experience with them differed from the experience we had Had with franchise holding corporations. This statement of my views has been assailed by some as an attempt to force these views upon the democratic party, and by some as an an nouncement of an intention to insist upon the incorporation of these views in the next demo cratic national platform. Let me answer these two charges. I have tried to make it clear that I expressed my own opinion and I have never sought to compel the acceptance of my opinion by any one else. Reserving the right to do my own thinking, I respect the right of every one else to do his thinking. I have too much respect for the rights of others to ask them to accept any views .that I may entertain unless those views commend themselves to others and I have too much confidence in the independent thought in my own party to expect that any con siderable number of democrats would acknowl edge my right to do their thinking for them even if I were undemocratic enough to assert such a right. As to platforms, I have contended always that they should be made by the voters. I have, in my speeches and through my paper, insisted that the platform should be the expression of the Wishes of the voters of the party and not be the arbitrary production of on'e man or a few leaders. If you ask me whether the question of gov ernment ownership will be an Issue in the cam paign of 1908, I answer, I do not know. If you ask me whether it ought to be in the platform, I reply, I can not tell until I- know what the democratic TOters think upon the subject. If: the democrats believe that the next platform should contain a plank in favor of government owner ship, then that plank ought to be included. If the democrats think it ought not to contain such a plank, then such a plank ought not to be in cluded. It rests with the party to make the plat form and individuals can only advise. I have spoken for' myself and for myself only, and I did not know how the suggestion would be received; I am now prepared to confess to you that It har been received more favorably than I expected. It has not been treated as harshly as I thought pos sibly it would bo treated. That it would bo de nounced bitterly by some I fully oxpected; that it would be gravely discussed by others I hoped. There la this, however, that I do expect, namely, that those democrats who opposed government ownership will accompany their declaration Against it with the assertion that thoy will favor government ownership whenever they aro con vinced that the country muBt chose between gov ernment ownership of the roads and railroad own ership of the government. I can not concelvo how a democrat can announco himself as op posed to government ownership, no matter to what extent the railroads carry their interference with politics and their corruption of offlcials. I think I may also reasonably expect that demo crats who oppose government ownership will say that if government ownership must come, thoy prefer a system whereby the state may bo pro served and the centralizing Influence bo reduced to a minimum. Such a plan I have proposed, and I have proposed it because I want the people to consider it and not be driven to the federal own ership of all railroads as the only alternative to private ownership. The dual plan of federal ownership of trunk lines and state ownership of local lines not only preserves the state, and oven strengthens its position, but it permits the grad ual adoption of government ownership as the people of different sections are ready to adopt it. I have been slow in reaching this position and I can therefore be patient with those who now stand where I stood for years, urging Btrict regu lation and hoping that that would bo found feas ible. I still advocate strict regulation and shall rejoice if experience proves that that regulation can be made effective. I will, go farther than that and say that I believe we can have more effi cient regulation under a democratic administra tion .with a democratic senate and house than we are likely to have under a republican adminis tration with a republican senate and house, and yet I would not be honest with you if I did not frankly admit that observation has convinced mo that no such efficient regulation is possible and that government ownership can be undertaken on the plan outlined with le'ss danger to the country than is involved in private ownership as we" havo had it or as we are likely to have it. I have been brought to regard public ownership as the ulti mate remedy by railroad history which is as fa miliar to you as to me. Among the reasons that have led mo to believe that we must, in the end, look to government ownership for relief, I shall mention two or three. First and foremost Is the corrupting influence of the railroad in politics. There is not a state in the union that has not felt this Influence to a greater or less extent. The railroads have insisted upon controlling legisla tures; they have Insisted upon naming executives; they have insisted upon controlling the nomina tion and appointment of Judges; they have en deavored to put their representatives on tax boards that they might escape just-taxation; they haye watered their stock, raised their rates and enjoined the states whenever they have attempt ed to regulate rates; they have obstructed legis lation when hostile to them and advanced, by secret means, legislation favorable to them. JLet me 'give you an illustration: The interstate commerce law was enacted nineteen years ago. After about nine years this was practically nullified by the supreme court, and for ten years the railroad influence has been sufficient in the senate and house to prevent an amendment asked for time and again by the in terstate commerce commission. That railroad In fluence has been strong enough to keep the repub lican party from adopting any platform declara tion in favor of rate regulation. When the presi dent, following the democratic platform, insisted upon regulation he was met with the opposition of the railroads and every step, every point gained in favor of the people was gained after a stren uous fight. The bill was Improved by an amend ment proposed by Senator Stone, of Missouri, re storing the criminal penalty which had been taken out of the Interstate commerce law by the Blkina law. This same amendment had been presented, in substance, in the house, by Congressman James of Kentucky, and had been defeated by republican votes. The bill was further improved by an amendment proposed by Senator Culberson, of Texas, forbidding the use of passes and it should have been still further Improved by the amend ment proposed by Sonntor Balloy of Toxas, limit ing tho court rovlow, but the railroad influonco was strong enough to defeat this amondmonU -I havo no idea that tho railroads aro going to pormlt regulation without a strugglo and I foar that their influcuco will bo strong enough to very much delay, if It docs not entirely defeat: remedial legislation. You, in this state, know ? "if th ra"r0ad ln pol,t,C8- When T v sited tho stato and spoko for Mr. Qocbol I heard iSn !.U?r OVOry P,a.tform that tho railroads Z!PnTlln'IT m,mB In opposition to his olec Soi l lmvo, always bollovcd that tho railroad tho people! bmV0 dCndor of th0 r,S,lt8 Anothor reason which 1ms led mo to favor government ownership, is tho fact that the peo ple are, annually plundered of an enormous sum by extortionate rates; that places are discrimin ated against and individuals driven out of busi ness by favoritism shown by tho railroads. You say that all these things can ho correctod with out Interference with private ownership. I shall bo glad if exporienco proves that they can bo but I no longer hope for it. President Rooaovolt' although expressing himself against government ownership, has announced that only successful regulation can provent government ownership, is there any democrat who Is not willing to go as far as President Roosevelt and admit tho neces sity of government ownership In caso tho peoplo are convinced of the falluro of regulation? I can not bellevo it Then, while wo attempt to make regulation effective, while wo endeavor to make tho experi ment under the most favorablo conditions, namely with tho democratic party in, power, lot us not hesitate to inform tho railroads that they must keep out of politics; that they must keep their hands off of legislation; that they must abstain from interfering with tho party machinery and warn them that thoy can only maintain their private control of tho railroads by accepting such regulation as tho people may see fit to apply in their own Interest and for their own protection. Without this threat our cause would bo hopeless. It remains .to bo seen whether, with this threat, we shall bo able to securo Justice to tho shippers, to the traveling public and to tho taxpayers. THE CUBAN INSURRECTION Tho administration is to bo commended for recalling the troops landed in Havana, doubtless before tho complications that must follow in tervention by tho government were given sorlous consideration. Wo should do all in our power to bring about peace by offering the good offices of this government. We can not, however, ruBh In every time the Cuban peoplo havo a little Inter nal strife. A Paris newspaper gave us a valuable hint when it said: "Tho United States helped Cuba to liberty, and will not take tho first oppor tunity to withdraw it." It was charged from' tho first that the Piatt amendment was intended to give warrant for a land grabbing expedition whenever occasion should provide a plausible excuse and the United States must do nothing to confirm this accusation. The pathway of popular government is not strewn with roses. Constant struggle and tho best thought have been necessary in tho past and will be required in the future among all men who hope to establish and maintain a gov ernment of, for and by the people. Wo of the United States have not been free from troubles in the past and even at this moment some very per plexing problems confront us and some very dire predictions are made by our critics in tho old world. These criticls even yet call the great American republic an "experiment," and it remains with the Americans of the present day to justify the theories of the fathers, just as it remains with the Cubans to work out their own salvation. They must settle their disputes among themselves. The United States government can help them mater ially in tho office of the Impartial mediator; but it is not the part of wisdom either for the welfare of our own peoplo or the future of Cuba that we Interfere in the local affairs of the little Island over which the flag of the United States was raised in high honor only to be lowered to its greater glory. i) ,