Jasper County Democrat, Volume 9, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 September 1906 — HILL AND GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP. [ARTICLE]

HILL AND GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

Jim Hill, dominant in three great railroad systems, the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern, and the Chicago Burlington & Quincy, the last named being the worst managed railroad on earth, as far as the public is concerned, and especially so since Jim Hill came into it, has come out squarely against the proposition of Government ownership of railroads. His Interview follows: "Three main objections to Mr. Bryan's plan for government ownership of rail* roads suggest themselves at once—one economic, one moral, one political. ' No where in the world is any enterprise conducted as cheaply under public as under private control. Government ownership means decreased efficiency with increased cost. This perpetual burden must be ’borne bv the people. "The action brought against federal department officials and the investigations found necessary within the last tew years disclose a state of morals in public life that no actual railway management will tolerate in its employ. The railway standard with government ownership for its opportunity would introduce unparalleled corruption into railroad operation and politics. "Control by any political party of the ways, hours and opportunities of the army of railroad employes would insure to it an indefinite lease of power. Elections would become a farce, and a transfer of power forcible by revolution. "These are only leading objections to a proposal that has nothing to recommend it.” Hill seems to have forgotten himself, or is relying on the credulity of the public, which has served him in such good stead in the past, else he would not have refered to the corruption in public affairs, as it has been discovered in some investigations made in recent years. There is much corruption in public affairs, but the assertion that railroads would not put up with such laxity as has been discovered in National and State affairs excites only contempt. We will agree with Jim Hill that they, and he for that matter, will not put up with corruption if the railroad is the sufferer, bnt how about the public? Will some one arise in his place and enumerate an instance where the public has been protected from plunder by this Canadian pirate? Or by any other railroad man of prominence for that matter? Does Jim Hill think that the public has forgotten what a state of affairs was exposed to public view, when the half-hearted examination was made in to the affairs of the so-called coat roads, and later into the Pennsylvania railroad system? Come a little nearer home, how about the Northern Securities deal? How about the subsidized Union and Southern Pacifica? How about Jay Gould’s Wabash? Isn’t it a pretty insolent argument to come from a prominent railroad man: “The actions brou't against federal department officials, and the investigations found necessary in the last few yeard, disclose a state of morals in public life, that no actual railway management will tolerate in its employ!” And again: “The railway standard, with government ownership for its opportunity would introduce unparalleled corruption into the railroad operation and politics.” As though there had not been any in the past! Having just finished a losing battle with the railroads, to compel them to treat the public fairly, and to stop robbing the little shipper and divide the loot with Rockefeller and his kind, doesn’t that sound fine! One would be led to think that Jim Hill or any other railroad magnate would not steal the few remaining acorns, with which a blind sow had been providentially provided, to smooth her declining years, after making that fine ‘talk, would they?