' 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) ,
