50 SHOULD THE NATION OWN THE RAILWAYS? 



the question now assumes this form: "Wliich is lo be prefeired, a musier in the shape of 

 a political party that it is possible to dislodge by the use of the Ijallot or «ue in the shape 

 of ten or twenty Goulds, Vanderbills, Huntingtons, Rockefellers, Sages, Dillons and 

 Brices who never die and whom it will be impossible to dislodge by the use of theballot?" 

 The particular Gould or Vanderbilt may die, as did that Vanderliilt to whom is aserllied 

 the aphorism "The public be damned," but the spirit aud power of the Goulds and Van- 

 ierhilts never die. 



OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL OWNERSHIP. 



The objections to national ownership are many; that most frequently advancedand 

 having the most force being the possibilty that, by reason of its control of a vastly in- 

 creased number of civil servants, the party in possession of the federal administration at 

 the time such ownership was assumed would be able to perpetuate its power indefinitely. 

 As there are more than 700,000 people employed by the railways this objection would s-i em 

 to be well taken, and it indicates serious and far-reaching results, un/ess some way can he 

 devised to neutralize the political power of such a vast addition to the oflicial army. 



In the military service we have a body of men that exerts little or no potitical 

 power, as the moment a citizen enters the army he divests himself of political functions, 

 and it is not hazardous to say that 700,000 capable and efRcient men can lie found who. for 

 the sake of employment to be continued so long as they are capable and well-behaved, will 

 forego the right to take part in political aflEairs. If a suflficient numlier of such men can 

 be found this objection would, by proper legislation, be divested of all its force. At all 

 events, no trouble from such a source has been experienced since Australian railways 

 were placed under control of non-partisan commissions, such commissions having had 

 charge of the Victorian railways since February, 1884, or a little more than one term, 

 they having been appointed for seven years, instead of for life, as stated by Mr. W. M. 

 Acworth in his argument against government control in the March Forum. 



The second objection is that there would be a constant political pressure to msike 

 places for the strikers of the party in power, thus adding a vast number of useless men to 

 the force and rendering it progressively more ditBeult to effect a change in the political 

 complexion of the administration. 



That this objection has much less force than is claimed is clear from the conduct of 

 the Postal Department, which is unquestionably a political adjunct to the administration; 

 yet but few useless men are employed, while its conduct of the mail service is a model of 

 elBciency after which the corporate managed railways might well pattern. Moreover, if 

 the railways are put under non-partisan control this objection will lose nearly if not quite 

 all its force. 



A third objection is that the service would be less efficient and cost more than with 

 continued corporate ownership. 



This appears to be bare assertion, as from the very nature of the case there can be 

 no data outside that furnished by the government-owned railways of British clo- 

 onles, and such data negatives these assertions and the advocates of national ownership 

 arejustified in asserting that such ownership would materially lessen the cost. Any 

 expert can readily point out many ways in which the enormous costs of corporate man- 

 agement would be lessened. With those familiar with presentmethods andnotinterested 

 in their perpetuation, this objection has no force whatever. 



The fourth objection is that with constant political pressure unnecessary linos 

 would be built for political ends. 



This is al.so bare assertion, although it is not impossible that such results would fol- 

 low; yet such has not been the case in the British colonies, where the governments have 

 had control of construction. On the other hand, it is notorious that under corporat" 

 ownership, aud solely to reap the profits to be made out of construction, the L'uiled Sl:;l( > 

 have been burthened with u.seless parallel roads and such corporations as tlie Santa F. 

 have paralled their own lines for such profits. It is quite safe to say th:it when the nati< n 

 owns the railways there will be no uickelplating, nor will such an uniuHcssary exiieni'ii" 

 ture be made as was involved in the construction of the West Shore; nor will the fiat o( 



