People's Pilot, Volume 5, Number 1, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 June 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. z 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 Indian 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 yOtir old party to oppose a question

that has been practically demonstrated ‘ in three-fcur:hs »f the world. Think of-it! In Germasy the fare on • government lines is oily one-fourth of a cent a mile! The wages of the em- j ployes on these lines an 120 per cent' higher than they were then the lines were under corporate maiagement, and notwithstanding the chiap fares and higher wages paid thi employes the German government derived from the roads last year a revenie of $25,000j5v0 as a net profit. Think cf that, you, who are having “paternalis/Ic” shivers and predicting disastrous results if we should try governmeit 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 ownershb of railways? i Only $5.50 is charged; and only firstclass fare, too, for ridhg 1,000 miles in Australia, while laboring men can ride for one-third of a cent a mile. In Victoria the net income frim the railroads last year was sufficient; to pay the federal taxes. In that cointry 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 rpads are owned by the stare ot provinces, the fare is one-sixth of a tent 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 ahd freight rates have been cut down pne-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 control—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 characterized with greater economy and efficiency than roans are ordinarily ander 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, and 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.