-':.sv
--!4
mvt.ttimmmnJrnii.
wjwaroawa, s vj1 . :awwu.'Tsg53
fr(rirts-it- !-
""Jf! V'
AkVi'
'.'.S&'r-'',
r;''
A,
"-".'i,y.f ;
V-'
""V.
'" .-'.
2T
Commoner!
! --;,
TOJLTOIIPW NUMBER.
V . ''
. - ''J! "
.r rc .;
"Batt3lSi&(MMlmrMt H
fc
r
I
. -
iJHt-f 4
K
k. '
l'.,W
.'Ilew 1o the Line, Lei the Chips Fall Wheri They MaV
No man who is financially connected witfi a corporation thrt is seeking privileges ought to
act as a member of a political organization, because he cannot represent his corporation arid the
people at the same time. He can not serve the party while he is seeking to promote the financial
interests of the corporation with which he is connected.
.,
t
4 - t
".?
? r
1 -
in the state and betray his constituents, the Tail
roads took him on, a, special engine to the state
line and he has never returned to Nebraska
since. At the next session the bill passed in spite
of the efforts of the railroads, and this time was
signed by the governor, but the railroads immedi
ately enjoined the enforcement of the law and we
are still waiting for a reduction of freight rates
although the railroads are able to pay ' dividends
on a large amount of watered stock and fictitious
capitalization.
"There, is not a state in the union that has
not, had experience with the railroad Jobby, al
thqugh the people, of-the south have probably had
less experience thajv the people, of the norths
Railroad, development- of the south &me after
th-ideyelopment, of the north, and during- the
period of development he railroads were' able
- tqsecure almost anything they, wanted. But
when the .period of active deyelopmcAt ends,
the people begin to ask themselves whether .they
can afford to allow jthe railroads to pwju- a state
because they have developed, it, and in the end.
the people always attempt control, hut an at
tempt to coritrol fhe -railroads 1s always followed
by r existence, and ljy the employment of corrupt
means with which 15 tfte railroad lobbyists are
iaxjftniar. 4l .amnot. fully informed astq, the .slt
'uaUon In each of the,a$ejt.ofthe'.aou.th, but. .in..,
several of thm the democratic platforms are
demanding more. stringent legislation and pr,o.
testing' against the influence gf the railroadsAin
politfcsj , f In. several of the "states democratic,
cadidateja. hayo been nominated for . goyernor-on
piupra aemantting.enLectlyQ. control of the rail
roads; I w.puld hftve sopne reached the con
clusion that government ownership will ulti
mately be neces.saxy$ ,wt Jlor ,the , facV that I
feared, and .still clfeaifhe jcentraUzlg influence
of, national owuersnipto 'have all of -the, rail
roads owned by the federal government, an'd
to,have the staUon qgents, freight handlers, track
repairers, bridge bulders and trainmen all ap
pointed from Washington would practically oblit
erate state lines and absorb the state in one
consolidated and centralized system.
"I am a believer in our dual form ,of govern
ment, under which the state is supreme in its
local affairs and the federal government supreme
In Interstate and international affair. I . would
not admit the necessity for government owner
ship until I had worked out a plan by which the
federal government Would own only the necessary
trunk lines and the state governments the local
lines. By a trunk line I do not mean every line
which runs through two states, but only those
trunk lines which may be necessary to regulate
mterstate rates and give the states a national
Outlet for their local lines. These trunk lines
need not be numerous, and the states should
be permitted to use them on equitable terms for
local trains run in connection with the state Tail
roads. I believe it would he an advantage
to allpw all railroadsoven those In private
handsto use the trunk lines, for the consolida
tion of lines has been forced upon, the smaller
roads, which found in consolidation the only out
let for their freight. Jf local lines could tap one,
or the main arteries, it would bo independent of
0 !S? 6ystems and able to hold its own.
The Btate ownership of railroad? is not only
free from the objection based upon centralization,
but really strengthens the position of the state
The tendency for a century has been to enlarge
JTerS ,5, tb? feaeral government and to
decry the relative importance of the s.tte. - Btate
ownership of all tii railroads but the fW: trunk
lines would very much strengthen Ithen states'
ffM"1 lhe Btatea a wSR
"The dual plan is a democratic plan in har
mony with democratic teachings and gives the
advantages of government ownership without! the
dangers of national ownership. This system of
confining national ownership to trunk lines and
reserving the local lines for the states has an
other advantage, namely, that it makes the adop-5
tion of the system gradual. If we attempted na
tibrial Ownership, the federal government would;i
extend, its. network of roads through every 'state,r;
and in carrying out the will of the majority of
the people of 'the United. States, the wishes, of ...
particular sections could not be considered. The
plan, which I propose leaves each state to deal .
with tho subject when, it pleases ind, as it pleases. ,
No jnatter what the federal government may do
in regard -to trunk lines,, each- state will be at.
liberty to .retain private ownership of local lhies.
as Jong a'H-iik8 an.d to convert the private lines
into, rstateline whleneyer the people desire-it
What is more democratic than to let ;the people, -doashey
.please andhaye what. they, like? .
. "Tie advantages of. the dual splan, therefore,
are, "fiskf that 4he importance of the, state is pre-r-served
and. the dangers; of centralization reduced
to, a mnimurar and second, that thesystem cdn,,
be.4adQpted gradually .as- the people .'of the yariousH
sto,test are: ready foi?it,i,and each.ta.te can profit?-,
by thevxperience; of .other states It is argued;
that the. government can not operate a railroad,
as; wpUas.a priyate corporation, A' 'Single, trunks
line Qperated. by fth.e gp.veim.QtfnwqHld-do mQx&.
to'jBettlejthis. disputed qUestipmithan all the 'argu
ments tbaco$(d be?made.x jifr experiment yjpvgs,
tha, ,pr3vat,ei pwnership is better, th$ stateseed.
not attempt public ownership.. ,Jt, on the, contrary
experience, proves as itiias in Europe that public
ownership is better, the, states can. adopt it at
thehv leisure., ,, M. ,k
. "X .need only repeat that government. owner:
sltf.P. ' proposed n6.tras. ?,anr immediate '-jremedyv;
DUt .ajthe ultimate remedy Idem.oQraticrieniJs
declaro.that they prefer priyate ownership, to,
public ownership, I answer that. I. would prefer ,
priyate. .pwnershlp to public ownership if- i be
lieved? it possible toregulate the roads in, a man
ner .satisfactory to the public' Jp is. hecause "j
haye lost faith in regulation that j. have quggestr
ed vOwn,ership. If further experience with. regu7
lation satisfies the .people, they will snot he palled
upon-to, consider the question of public ownership,
and' as I for years opposed public ownership in
the hppeT of securing efficient regulation, X can
be patient with those who still hope and can wait ,
for .events to convince them as events haye con
vinced me,
"No one will deny that the trend of events
is toward government ownership. Ten years ago .
when. I was denounced as too radical, I neither
advocated government ownership nor suggested
the possibility of it T was still hoping for regu
lations Since that time the president himself
has held out the possibility of government own
ership as a threat to compel the. railroads to con
sent, to regulation. I was only about six months ,
ahead of the president in, suggesting government
ownership as a remedy, the difference between
his position and mine being, he regards govern
ment ownership as fraught with ganger and still ,
hopes that successful regulation may make gov,
eminent- ownership unnecessary. 1 go a step,,
farther and express it:as my opinion that expert
ience has already proved the futility of ,regua-
tion and propose a plan which ..eliminates the
greatest evil of government ownership the cenM
trallzation of so much power in the hands of,
the federal government "Without: this alternative
of government ownership it? wpuld be entirely
impossible to drive the railroads out of politics
Even . with this threat J am very much afraid
that -we shall not be able to kep the, railroad
representatives away from. .congress and the state!
legislatures . , a 5 "..-..,.
"There Is just one other objection to which'
I wish to refer, namelythat under government
ownership an administration could keep itself
in power. Under the dual system proposed only
the trunk lines would be under the control-'Of
the federal government, and their employes would
he few compared with the entire number of
railroad employes in the country; As the various
state's would own the local lines within their
borders, the influence of 'one state would counter
act the influence of another state. : Then, too,
under a proper civil service 'the interference of
the railroad employes in politics would be reduced
to .a minimum, gome twelve years ago I pro
posed a change in the civil spryice flaw which,
would give to each party its proportionate repre
sentation in the civil 'service. This plan would
preserve theVimerit system in the .appointments
but would give each party its share of the offices,
and tbTe,. employees would, counteract each other's
influence.. .Ixnighfc add that haying-passed through
two campaigns, I have been able to form an
opinion 9f the civil, service- 'employes as com
pared with tho railroad-employes The president
wasT against, me in botlvany- campaigns, in the
firjjt. ardemocratic president was. using his influ
enc in.,behajf of the1 republican ; -candidate, arid
Inthe. iSpcond election, the republican candidate
wasatthie head of ,all the departments of the
government. -JEriT both campaigns, the civil seryice
employes, gave less,. trQuble Jhan- the railroad
employes, who wjero, -cperqejl .by their employers
ipto the support of the r.epublicauuticket, and I
sOsTj wtlt hesitation pat I would, rather., risk
the influence nicji, a president. can hring tp bear
uponfciviV service, employes than, to risk the in
fluence which railroad .owners can; bring to bear
upop railroad ompjqyes. ,
, '"But, as my on,ly desire ij? to study the ques
tion and leave you to consider it now ).r4it such
Uturev, time as.,you.(thjnk It-Ani.jtssjje, J w,i. not
gpf intoTdjetails. "When the tiinQ c.9.m.e. for the
diseussjem of the proposition's an impprtant issue
1 shall , be , glad, to tale upa.ll' b.raiches .otrthe.
subject and show that the dual plan is not, only
democratic, out -practical and that the dangers, of
government ownership under such a ,plan are less
than the; dangers of private ownership it we can
judge private ownership by past experience, and
I believe that the advantages of government own
ership, under this, plan are much superior to the
advantages, of private ownership -.as. we now
have it,"
I have not only found a hearing in the south,
but T have found much more encouragement than
I had expected. "While a majority of the demo
cratic leaders of the south in fact, nearly all
of them are opposed to government ownership,
at this time, they, with but few exceptions, admit
that government ownership will he necessary if
regulation fails. No democrat can stand before
an intelligent body, of citizens and declare him
self in favor pf private ownership without, adding
that he will favor government ownership if he
has to choose between the government owner
ship of the railroads and the railroads' ownership
of the government This is the position which,
the leading, democrats of the south now. occupy,
hut it is too early to know the opinion 6f.the;
rahk and file of the. party, Ii; must be remembered
that the populist party developed strength all
over -the south, in some places haying almost
if not quite a majority of the white vote. These
populists have gone back into the democratic
party, but they. have, .nqt surrendered their belief
in the government ownership of railroads, which, '
was ope of the main planks in the populist plat
form. Jf;(th.e populists ot the. south would favor,
national pwnership, which involves, the enlarges
ment of the influence of the federal government
atthe expense -of ,tbe;state, they wQuld'be much
more apt; tp, favor, state-ownership which : would
add to nthe importance of the state? and at the
same time give the people the benefit of public.
ownershfRw.
President Roosevelt has sounded the alarm
M
jWi