People's Pilot, Volume 4, Number 47, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 May 1895 — Government Ownership. [ARTICLE]

Government Ownership.

The government ownership of railways, telegraph and telephone lines, is a question that is making more rapid progress than many people are aware of. The practicability of the idea of government ownership of the means of distribution of products is being manifested in hundreds of cities in the municipal ownership of water works, gas and electric lighting plants, there being no case of record where municipal ownership of these conveniences having been tried that have proven other than satisfactory. While we have not in this country got beyond municipal ownership, the question of government ownership is growing rapidly, particularly within the last two years. It is useless for a few foolish partisan slaves and superficial minded men to pooh pooh this idea, as it is coming, and the intelligence of the American people will in a few years accept it. Out of seventy-three governments in the world, only nineteen are without government ownership of railroads, wholly or in part. Fifty-four governments own wholly or in part the railroads within their borders, and so far not a single failure in management has been reported, but on the contrary, many of them are so successfully managed as to be sources of revenue to the governments, and yet the freight and passenger rates are far below the rates maintained by corporations, and far below the rates of American railways. Out of seventy-four governments, all own their telegraph lines except six, one of which is the United States, the others being Hawaii, Cuba, Bolivia, Cyprus, and Honduras. This government owns telegraph lines in the west connecting its posts and Ipdian reservations, and were erected for the convenience of the government, and before the country was settled or penetrated by railways. On these lines ten-word messages are sent for ten cents, but the moment they strike a corporation line two and a half cents a word is charged. If other governments are successfully operating railways and telegraph lines, why not the United States? Down deep in your heart, you who call such "paternalism,” can you give an intelligent reason why we should not? No, you know you cannot, but you object— the most of you—because it is the policy of your old party to oppose a question

(feat has been practically demonstrated In three-fourths of the world. ''* . Think of.it! In Germany the tare on government line* la only one-fourth of a cent ajnile! The wages of the employes on these lines are 120 per cent higher than they were when the liwea were undo* corporate management, and notwithstanding the cheap fares and higher wages paid the employes the German government derived from the roads last year a revenue of $25,000,1100 aa a net profit Think of that, you, who are having “paternalistic” shivers and predicting disastrous results if we should try government ownership of railroads In this country! Australia gave us a pattern in election laws, and about every state in the union has adopted it in some form, and now why not by this system of government ownership of railways? Only $5.50 is charged, and only firstclass fare, too, for riding 1,000 miles in Australia, while laboring men can ride for one-third of a cent a mile. In Victoria the net income from the railroads last year was sufficient to pay the federal taxes. In that country the wages of railroad men are from 25 to 30 per cent more for eight hours* work than are paid in this country for ten or more hours’ work. In Hungary, where the roads are owned by the state or provinces, the fare is one-sixth of a cent a mile, and since the roads have passed into the hands of the government the wages of railway employes have been doubled. In Belgium fares and freight rates have been cut down one-half and the wages of employes doubled. In all these countires the efficiency of the service has been greatly increased, the road beds, bridges, and rolling stock kept in better repair, and the trains are run with greater safety and with a less number of accidents than when the roads were operated by corporations. These statements are based on reports of governments where railroads and, their operators form a part of the government business, and hence it cannot be charged that they emanate from men of visionary or impracticable ideas.

In support of government ownership of railroads, we bring as a further proof of its feasibility and practical utility the fact that where we have government oontrol—that is, where roads are placed in the hands of receivers and are operated under the instructions of the United States 'courts, the management of such roads are characterised with greater economy and efficiency than roads are ordinarily under corporate control. For several years past more than one-third the mileage of railways in this country has been in the hands of receivers and practically under government management, as not a wheel is turned or a dollar expended that is not under the supervision of the United States courts. When, by reason of inefficiency or dishonesty on the part of the managers of a railway, a road is placed in the hands of a receiver, Uncle Sam takes It in hand and doctors it, putting the track and rolling stock in good condition and otherwise repairing the line and business. Instances are of record where lines had been run down until there was little left but the right of way and two streaks of rust, arid yet under Uncle Sam’s management in a few years was reckoned as first class railroad property. In conclusion would say, do not let your political prejudices so bias you as to hinder you from giving this question of government ownership your candid consideration. Study it carefully, and by your vote and influence aid in overturning this great monopoly.