"BACK TO THE FARM! * 157 



sold directly to the people of the city in this crude way 

 at a greatly reduced cost. Of course no profit was 

 made on this transaction, but the consumer was brought 

 nearer to the producer. To this, objection may be 

 made that Mayor Shank's action is not " good business." 

 No, it is true it is not business in the ordinary sense of 

 the word; that is, Mayor Shank did not go into this 

 venture for the sake of making money. May not this 

 experiment, however, show what might well be accom- 

 plished by governmental control of socialistic activities ? 

 The recent report of the Postmaster-General shows that 

 the calendar year has closed with profit, and that all 

 the money which the Government expended in carry- 

 ing the mail has been refunded by those who pay for 

 stamps. This, perhaps, is not " business," but is there 

 any one who wishes to take the post-office department 

 out of the hands of the Government and to put it into 

 competitive trade? 



May I suggest that although this is rank socialism, 

 it may be the one solution of the problem. The State 

 now carries our letters and newspapers, and I doubt if 

 any combination of men who would desire to secure 

 control of this transportation could influence the peo- 

 ple of the country to take this away from the State 

 and give it back to competitive business. Can any 

 valid reason be presented in opposition to the State's 

 taking charge of the telephone, the telegraph, and the 

 express companies in the same manner ? If this is 

 considered to be a legitimate function of the State, has 

 not Mayor Shank shown a way to cheapen existence ? 



I said that I did not see how any fair argument could 

 be presented against such a scheme. On further re- 

 flection, I find that there is one. Control by the State 

 naturally would occupy the services of only a portion 



