SHOULD THE NATION OWN THE RAILWAYS? 5H 



of no part of the country would have to wait while the worthless locomotives of some 

 bankrupt corporatiDii were liciiii;- patolied up, uor would there be the present difficulties 

 in obtaiiiiiis^ freight cars, growing out of the poverty of corporations which have been 

 plundered by the manipulators, nor would iniprovciiient be hindered by the diverse ideas 

 of the managers of various lines in relation to the adoption of devices intended to render 

 life more secure, or to add to the public convenience. That such is one of the evils of cor- 

 porate management is demonstrated daily and is shown by the following from the Rail- 

 way JRcvieiv of March 7th, 1891 : "It is stal-ed that a bill will be introduced in the Illinois 

 legislature, at the suggestion of the railroad and warehouse commissioners, governing the 

 placing of interlocking plants at railway grade crossings. It sometimes happens that one 

 of the comi)anies concerned is anxious to put in such a plant and the other objects. At 

 present there is no law to govern the matter and the enterprising company is forced to 

 abide the time of the other." Instead of national ownership being a hindri.nce to im- 

 provement and enterprise the results in Australia prove the contrary, as in Victoria the 

 government railways are already provided with interlocking plants at all grade crossings 

 and one line does not have to wait the motion of another, but all are governed by an ac. 

 tive and enlightened policy which adopts all beneficial improvements, ajipliances or 

 modes of administration that will add either to the public safety, comfort or convenience. 

 It is safe to say that had the nation been operating the railways there would have been 

 no Fourth avenue tunnel horror and C'hauncy Depew and associates would not now be 

 under indictment, as the government would not have continued the use of the death 

 ■dealing stove on half the railways in the country in order to save money for the share- 

 holders. 



Existing evidence all negatives Mr. Acworth's postulate "That state railway sys- 

 tems are incapable of vigorous life." 



An objection to national ownership which the writer has not seen advanced is 

 that states, counties, cities, townships and school-districts would loose some $27,000,000 of 

 revenue derived from taxes upon railways. 



While this would be a serious loss to some communities there would be compensat- 

 ing advantages for the public as the cost of transportation would be lessened in like 

 measure. 



Many believe stringent laws enforced by commissions having judicial powers will 

 serve the desired end and the writer was long hopeful of the efflcacy of regulation by 

 state and national commissions but close observation of their endeavors and of the con- 

 stant efforts — too often successful— of the corporations to place their tools on such com- 

 missions and to evade all laws and regulations have convinced him that such control is 

 and must continue to be inefTective and that the only hope of just and impartial treat- 

 ment for railway users is to exercise the "right of eminent domain", condemn the rail- 

 ways and pay their owners what it would cost to duplicate them and in this connection 

 it may be well to state what valuations some of the corporations place upon their proper- 

 ties. 



Some years since the "Santa Fe" filed in the counties on its line a statement show- 

 ing that at the then price of labor and materials — rails were then double the present price 

 — that the road could he duplicated for $9,685 per mile and the materials being badly 

 worn the actual cash value of the road did not exceed $7,725 per mile. 



In 1885 the superintendent of the St. Louis & Iron Mountain Railway, before the 

 Arkansas State Board of Assessors, swore that he could duplicate such railway for $11,000 

 per mile and yet Mr. Gould has managed to float its securities notwithstanding a capital- 

 ization of Ave times that amount. 



THE ADVANTAGE OF NATIONAL OWNERSHIP. 



First would be the stability and practical uniformity of rates now impossible, as 

 they are subject to change byhundreds of officials, and are often made for the purpose of 

 enriching such officials. State and federal laws have had the eflect of nniking discrimi- 

 nations less public and less numerous, but it is doulitful if they are less eflective in en- 



