Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (May 1, 1919)
npw rfWT'rr?r; 1 The Commoner 6 M.KO.5 i fci not long ago that one of the companies1 was using tho mails for tho delivery of night letters, thus taking advantage of the government mail sorvico while charging telegraph rates. Tho federal government is in position to sup ply much moro complote sejvico than a private monopoly possibly can and at a very much loss cost. Every post ofllco should be supplied with a telegraph instrument, except whore tho tele phono is substituted for It. It is not diflicult to loam tho telegraph code, and in the smaller communities there is no roason why the one in charge of tho postofllco should not also attend to tho tolograph buslnoss. Tho amount invested in privately owned tele graph systems is comparatively small, so that the cost of talcing thorn over or duplicating them cannot be used as an argument against immedi ate nationalization. And it is not a new ques tion. Tho country has had three decades in which to considor tho proposition. Postmastor Gonoral Wanamalccr recommended a postal tele graph systom when a member of President Har rison's cabinet and Postmaster-General Hitch cock, a member of President Taft's cabinet, re newed tho recommondation. Tho country is ripo for tho change. Tho war brought tho question to an issud, and of all oxtonBions of governmental activity this is tho one which Is most certain to become permanent. Tho only opposition likely to bo mot by tho advocates of tho nationalization of telegraph linos will como from two groups one, very small, made up of persons pecuniarily interested in tho control of the wires, and another com posed of those who aro so much opposed to the principle of government bwnorship that they ob ject to any extontion of governmental powers on tho theory that ono step may lead to another; that is, that government ownership of tho tele graph lines may lead to tho taking over of other franchises. Tho objoction based on pecuniary interest will bo discounted because of that pecuniary interest, and the objection based on fear of other exten sions will bo rejected by tho common sonso of tho country, which Is practical enough to deal with each question-upon its merits. The nationalization of. telephones, also recom mended by Postmaster-General Burleson, is a much larger quostion. Tho long-distance tele phone linos aro in tho same class with telegraph lines and should bo owned and operated by tho federal government for the same reasons. Not only 1b tho long-distance telephone line quite Identical with the telegraph line in tho sorvico rendered, but It is already being used as a, substitute for the telegraph lino over short distances, so that it is likely to interfere seri ously with tolograph business and to prevent any further extension of tho telegraph system into smaller communities. But for tho increasing amount of capital that is being invested in the long-distance telephone sorvico there would be but little opposition to the proposition to nationalize them. But the pecuniary opposition, considerable ast will bo, cannot overcome the conclusive arguments ad vanqed in favor of tho ownership and operation of the long-distance telephone lines by the federal government. But why should the federal government oper ate the local telephone exchanges? They con stitute by far the larger part of the telephone system. Only a small percentage of the calls use long-distance. If there is any virtue in the theory of popular government, then tho people can best attend to tlid business nearest them tho business which most concerns them. ' Tho citizen is much moro interested in the successful oporatlon of tho telephone systom in his own city than he is in telephones outside aud much more interested than any outsider can bo in tho perfecting of tho local system. Why shpuld It be nocessary for a citizen to appeal to Washington to remedy inefficiency In his own municipality? The Washington official is not only too far away to be readfly sympathetic but ho has so many calls that ho cannot give promnt attention to each one that a local official can A clear lino can bo drawn between ownershin by a municipality and ownership that is directed from Washington. The local telephone system is as much a monopoly as a water plant Anv attempt at competition in the matter of local telephones is not only expensive to the com munity, but an annoyance. It comes under tho head of a natural monopoly 'and should be owned by the government. If we must eventually coZ to tho government ownership of telephone ex changes, why not now? Why return them to private hands and then "begin a fight to secure public ownership? - Our federal government has been a success because It was built upon a plan tho only plan yet devised which permits indefinite expansion without loss of efficiency a dual plan under which the federal government attends to national matters, and the state government to matters which are local. Why not apply the same prin ciple to the telephone monopoly, and let the federal government operate the long-distance lines, leaving the local exchanges to be operated by local governmental units, to be defined by state legislation? Tho federal government might temporarily look after the local exchanges until the states themselves provide for ownership and operation by .local units. As nearly all the states have legislative sessions this winter, it is possible to put the dual plan into operation before the ad journment of congress. If it is urged, ad an objection to government operation of the telephone system, that the em ployes may be used for, political purposes, it may be answered, first, that experience shows 'that government officials cannot bd used in poli tics to tho same extent that private corporations have used their employes. Second, that tho use of political employes may be reduced to a minimum by a wisely constructed civil service system. I say "wisely constructed" because the civil service system, as wo now have it, is not the last word on tho subject." Two serious objections may be made to it; first, that it 'is theoretically non-partisan, and second, that it tends to destroy the employe's interest in politics an interest which is not only legitimate but necessary to our institutions. Experience shows. that the dominant party is not only able to turn the nonpartisan rules to its advantage, but often extends the system over employes selected by partisan rule, and it is not at all unusual to find civil service employes who have refrained from voting for many years for foar they might vote on the losing side and thus jeopardize their positions. If wo had a civil service system which re tained, or even made more efficient, competitive examinations, and yet, after having secured effi CJcy hl examinations, permitted a distribution of the offices in proportion to party strength, the system would be built upon a more substantial and enduring basis. There iB no objection to examinations, how ever rigid they may be, for no person can have a just claim to a public office unless he can show himself entirely qualified for its duties, but after the qualifications of applicants have been tested by examanations the appointments should be made from the party having less than its quota. In this way applicants, instead of trying -to conceal their politics, would not only announce heir political affiliations but have them certified to by the proper party authorities, and then after appointment would be free to exercise a cit zen's interest in the questions affecting the public we fare. Such a system could be applied to appointees in nation, state and city, tho an portionment in each case being based upon the relative vote in that unit. P But whether under a revised system of civil service or under the present system Uie objec tions raised to government ownership are not so serious as those that can be made against the owners of private monopolies. Government fff .th telegraph lines , and telephone systems is coming, and now is a good timetn adjust ourselves to this extension of g3rn ETn1 a?vIty- The dual Plan i3 Submitted consideration, with the confidence that it meets the requirements of tho situation. W. J. BRYAN. DUAL OWNERSHIP OF . RAILROADS country. g noPulation of tho roads aro influential in businenTpln'e in politics; directly or inrifrafiM .. . . sure to bear upon a large numbo- f w prei" who ares actually on its pay roll per8c To understand the subject it' in know hot only the railroads as thai I?? l the railroads as they are p?anSS V"1 Important roads .were taken over h tt0re ernment as a war measure, but , ?e 60T' authorized this limited the con ro tn Uh,c!l -of twenty-one months after the JnnY f peace, so that affirmative action li8,on 0l order to continue government operatio? ln General McAdoo has suggested thX, ircctor of control be extended unti? the f, st 0 ?nPeriod -1924, in order that government ; operiuS"117' be tested more fully and under normal m tions. But this Proposition, LmiggtloT1' expected has aroused a prom? protat J2 int0er0estT10 rGPreSent Ul Controln6 raift I need not discuss Mr. McAdoo's proposal therefore, because, it is not likely to be aS able to either side. accept The railroad magnates, knowing the pecuniary va ue of private ownership to those i co to? will not consent to delay, and the friends of government ownership will see little advanL in a test made under the direction of those So personally favor private ownership, if govern. ment ownership is to have a fair test, the test must be made by those who believe in it and want it to succeed; and even then it would have to meet an opposition from railroad interests which will disappear after government owner ship becomes the settled poll .y of the country The situation divides itself into four proposi tions. I. A return to private ownership as it was be fore the government assumed control. This Is improbable. The railroads are opposed to It, the President has announced his opposition to it, and the advocates of government ownership are, of course, opposed to it. It may therefore be dismissed for the present. Its consideration is only possible as a compromise in case no other plan can secure the support of a majority. Weak as it is, it has the strength inherent in an exist ing system before any proposed change Becures the support of a majority. II. WHAT RAILROAD DIRECTORS WANT The;plan supported by the railroads contem plates "a return to private ownership under a so-called unified system of control, with the federal government exercising exclusive super vision over all railroad traffic, intra-state as well as inter-state. The railroads have for years had this change in view. In 1916 they secured the incorporation in the republican national plat form of the following plank: "Inter-state and intra-state transportation has become so interwoven that the attempt to apply two; and often several, sets of laws to its regula tion has produced conflicts of authority, embar rassment in operation and inconvenience and ex pense to the public. The entire transportation system of the country has become essentially na tional. We therefore favor such action by legis lation or, if necessary, through an amendment to the constitution of the United States as will r jult in placing it under federal control." The democratic party was silent upon tho sub ject, and the national committee did not em phasize this issue in the campaign. After the election the railroads immediately proceeded to lay their plans for securing this centralization of control. Hearings were begun before a joi committee at Washington, and the railroad law yers who looked after railroad interests at tno capitol presented elaborate arguments in support of tho federal control plan. Our nation entereu the war before the hearings were completed, anu the activities of the railroads in tins uue-- uie activities oi the ranroaas in una ""-".-Were suspended, but the demand now made w the railroads for return to private ownersnw includes this change. The situation was bad enough when euper vislon was divided between the federal I 6'. ment and the several states; it was hrd n"L to secure effective regulation or fairness in r.u when the people spoke through represents who lived near them and assembled ai several state capitals. . . No one acquainted with politics during tne "wcuijr-jivo years can nave j.uib"1-" one of corruption. Tho free railroad passwj . of the means employed until it was eTll"j by both state and national legislation. imlb r'