Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 1, 1919)
ttffifxf "' The Commoner OCTOBER, 1919 "1 "V VOW i t,f nnt to be too much alarmed, at possible ought not w v 07TininvnfiS i1Q.vo one-third quoncos u -" u"r wo KotiKC t understand the plan correctly, it also gives ,fiS representation to'abdttt 20,000 officials, 0D ra distinguished from tho employees in the "uJltt service. The 20,000 (or nineteen thou 15 some odd) are, I believe, described as Sews", while the 2,000,000 are described . ''employees in the classified service". I can Jot understand why 1 per cent should be given ho samo proportionate representation in tho management -that, 99 per centare to have. That St cannot understand why 20,000 men, de scribed as officials, should have the same rep resentation in the board of management that is civen to 2,000,000 employees,-known as men in tho classified service, and still less can j. under stand Wliy ZU,UUU OiUUiuiu oiiuuiu uo' fcivou us much representation as all the rest of the people of the country. I do not object to tho one-third representation to the employees, but I hardly believe" that the American people will consider favorably a pro position by which 20,000 employees, known as officials, shall have as much influonce in that board as the people who pay the taxes and furnish the money to pay the employees, both in the classified service and in the official class. There are many good things' in that proposed plan; for instance, the provision by which they would have a sinking fund, and in something like 30 to 40 years pay off the cost of the roads, so that the dividend can be eliminated' and the roads run for the benefit of tho people without subtracting anything to pay for the road's them selves, they having been paid for. by the money paid into tho sinking fund. If I was compelled to choose between -private ownership, as it will he if wo have it, and na tionalization, I woulcT take the risk of national ization rather than the risk of private owner ship. Advocates of private ownership make three objections against nationalization', which I am prepared to answer to my own featisfaction,. al though I will later present the dual plan, which, I think, is better than nationalization of all the railroads. ' " ' ' u The three strong arguments; as I see them, against nationalization are, first, that it would cost some eighteen to twenty billions to buy the roads. That would be quite an addition to the public debt of the country; but as the traffic has has to pay the interest that the railroads pay and tho dividends that the stockholders receive, a Smaller traffic charca wnnfri ho norASHnrv frnm the public to run the railroads if the government owned them than would be required to run them if private individuals owned them. The American People, therefore, would not have to give up as much money for their railway service under na tional ownership as under private ownership. . THE RAILROADS IN POLITICS A second argument made by the advocates of private ownership against nationalization is that the government owned the railroads it might use them in politics. While I see force in that, i cannot understand why that argument should do advanced by the advocates of private owtfer p, for the government could not, if it tried, oo worse than thq railroad magnates have done ??! y have used tue railroads in politics, mero has not been a day In 25 years when the SSm8 tho Unitel States have not been in latiiw' y have electea governors and legis iurJln mu senatrs and congressmen and . n?i 5 V107 havo controlled party conventions, 17a ;5 y have uad tnQlr lobbyists at the national rZnlf ? caPItals. corrupting all who could be grunted and coercing all who could be coerced. raiLgo0iVer,nment could not " tried, use the w iff in Polltica t0 tn same extent, for it tr?P( l ? to act Publicly. It could not, if it lv tn it, r? rallroads so corruptly, and so great tenSA njury of tue Public as these railroad he in t mi aono aud will or thy oxPact to W 1 l ca ia the future even more than they vo ever been in the past. ifnwTJ , ,n lu a .Position to inspect the ma- uery and know whnf tTiov wakq rlnino ThAV ioi years sought to take "from the states all ntitv, - :" ouugat 10 taico irom uie uiuiua to dnniuity,,over 'railroads. They have sought InterSf J a11 control at Washington. In the to 2i0 x oro effluent control? No. In order easiep f AnC(Strol ause they know that it ia auflhwi 710 attroada to control a congress, thefortv.?9 tneir wlll tha to control Nearer to thhateS5 "Yrhoso representatives are I need not discuss this in detail or give illns. roadandthn T th Pennanla Rail road and tho Baltiraoro & Ohio Railroad had whfinrZrrnttIVQ8 ln WaBhfngton at the t m o when- the new depot was being provided for and Hfithey Urd tlielr pa8803 t0 8ecuro the appro. SnnviT th6y T0?,red- They had their pass- ?nf !5?nS "m1 Aearned from mon who came into contact with them. RAILROADS THROTTLED BILL For ten years tho railroads at this capital pre vented tho carrying out of tho recommendations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, when it was asking for an enlargement of its powers. For ten years they were ablo to throttlo that bill in the senate. When I wag in congross a quarter of a century ago, I remember a littlo bill, it looked like an Innocent bill, requiring the Rock Island Railroad to stop Its trains in Oklahoma at two towns that the government Itself had laid out. There where two towns near that were laid out by private individuals, who had moro in fluence with the railroads than tho government had, and the railroads stopped their trains at these private towns, laid out and owned by pri vate individuals, but would not at tho govern ment's towns. We passed a bill through tho house requiring them to stop the trains at tho government towns, but it was held up in tho senate until tho people became so indignant that they tore up the tracks, and compelled the trains to stop. Then tho senate allowed tho bill to pass. You will remember that a recommendation was made some years ago in regard to national incorporation. I knew for years that they wore trying to get it, and I thought I know why. Tho first comment that I saw in the paper on that recommendation, made by a president, was cabled from London. Tho man whoso interview was so Important that it came across the ocean by cable was named Stlcknoy. He was tho presi dent of a western railroad. I cannot quote it verbatim, but what he said in substance was that he approved of national incorporation, because it was tho only way tho railroads could oscape from the demagogues in the state legislatures. I happened to know that only a short while be fore that the '(demagogues" in the state legis lature of Minnesota had appointod a committee to investigate his railroad, and that tho commit tee reported that his road was stocked and bonded for about throe times what it would cost to reproduce it. I only mentfon these as illustrations. What the railroads want is tho concentration of all authority at Washington. They want to rob the states of all power to control the traffic within the states, and then they want to consolidate all the lines into a few groat trunk lines. A few weeks ago it was suggested that wo have 25 or 50 systems instead of some 350 that we have now; but I think Mr. Hines suggested 15; if I' remember correctly, he at one time sug gested from G to 12. Now, why not be frank and say that what they want is one system? They may take 25 if they cannot get any greater re duction, but they would profor 15; they would like 10 better; they would be more pleased with 5, but what they want Is one. What they want and what they will havo, if they can control public opinion and continue private ownership, is one gigantic monopoly, the greatest the world ever saw, with all tho banking power back of it and all tho big newspapers con trolled by it, and then the question will bo whether the government will own the railroads or the railroads own the government. Pardon me If I have spoken with earnestness, because a man cannot pass through what one baa to pass through, if he seeks to protect the public from the creed of private monopoly, with out speaking with earnestness upon the dangers that ire Involved and the Injustice that Is done. I repeat, I am not afraid of the government using these railroads in politics, becauso It can not do as badly as the railroad managers havo SSne but to my mind there is a third argument again's -nationalization that is a much more Serious argument. It is the argument that I am trying to meet with the dual plan. DANGERS OF NATIONALIZATION The third objection is the centralization of i tfrnmflndous power at Washington. To my nd thTonS Argument against nationalization SS vou wed to consider seriously is this, be 1 Ly?t is so much greater than any other argu CanUn? nr all others Combined, that, in my Judg Sent It stands oTt as the one that demands con 51 ?rotlon, namely the concentration at Wash ington of all tho power Involved in the national- l Izatlon of all tho railroads. "ii1. to chooao botweon tho concentration ' of all this power in Now York in tho hands of railway magnates and tho centralization of all this power in Washington In tho hands of gov ernment ofllcials, I would without a moment'a Hesitation profor to risk concentration in tho hands of public ofllcials rathor than in the hands of railroad magnates. But, gontloraon of the committco, I am afraid of centralization. I am afraid of it, becauso I bollovo that nationalization of tho railroads will go far towards tho obliteration of state lines. Romombor that tho railroad systems colloct a rovonuo each year that Is moro than our national revenue in ordinary tiraos, and therefore it would requiro an enormous bureau to raanago the business. If wo attempted to manage It by direct action of congross, congross would not havo time for that business, lot alone other busi- ' ness. If wo attomptod to manago it by a bureau, we would havo all tho dinicultios that como with buroaucracy. While, I repeat, I would profor to risk that rathor than to risk tho concentration of power in Now York in tho hands of rallroud magnates, I would liko to avoid both if I can. Dnniol Web ster has described this govornmont according to my idea at least, his description of it fits my views bettor than any other description I havo found. Ho spcakr. of "an indissoluble union of indlstructlblo stale". I bollovo it is as necessary that tho state shall bo indestructible as that the union shall bo indissoluble, if a comparison on such matters is proper. What I moan to say that wo cannot afford to destroy tho stato. Wo cannot afford to concen trate all power at Washington, and my chief ob jection to tho natlonclization- of all tho r-Hroads is that it does concentrate at Washington a power and an Influonce that will go further to wards centralization than all othor things that havo been done since our constitution was adopted. And now, ropoatlng again that if I had to choose betveen this centralization In tho hands of public officials and tho kind of centralization tho railroad magnates want in their hands in Now York, I would infinitely prefer to take my chances on tho govornmont officials ln Washing ton. I will explain tho dual plan. THE DUAL PLAN As far back as fifteen years ago I roached tho conclusion that wo must havo government owner ship in this country, not immediately, but ultim ately. And I may add that tho final argument that turned tho balance and determined my de cision was the corrupting lnfluenco of tho rail road in politics. I had seen young men go out of school and college with their hearts in sym pathy with their neighbors about them. I had seen them become the attorneys for a railroad in a county, and then they would begin to look forward to the time when they could bo attor neys for a group of counties and thon for the state, with tho attorneyship for tho system as the ultimate goal. ' , I had seen these young men weaned away from sympathy with tho people until they were tho lobbyists of the railroads, representing them in political conventions and having their rooms at stato capitols. Subsequent observation has con firmed this opinion. In 2d years of experience In public life one sees a great many things that are not discerned In a day or a year. i As soon as I became convinced that govern ment ownership was the only solution of tho difficulties and the dangers involved in private ownership, I began to seek for ti plan that would givo us the benefits of government ownership I without tho dangers of nationalization. This was the purpose that I had in mind whon, back there when no one paid any attention to what was said j on this subject, I was trying to bring before tho public a dual plan that I am hero to present to you. I believe that It gives tho benefits of or- ' ernment ownership without tho dangers involved in nationalization. I Tho dual plan is simply this: Our government is a dual form of government. We have our na tional government dealing with national qties tions and international affairs, and we havo our states, and under them aro our counties and our cities, dealing with local matters. I believe it would havo been Jmposgiblo to administer this republic as wo havo administered it without tho adoption of that dual plan, If everything had to be done in Washington, it would have been phy sically impossible for the men, representing hero m mi f: &' l ,u V. iif fa v'? J - i " o JtSfrg.