SHOULD THE NATION OWN THE RAILWAYS? 57 



shorter line. It is evident that if the long route can afford to do the business for the -rates 

 charged that the rates charged by the shorter are excessive in a high degree. 



Under government management traffic would take the direct route, as mail matter 

 now doe.s, and the industries of the country be relieved of the enormous tax imposed by 

 needless hauls. Only those .somewhat familiar with the extent of the diversions from 

 direct routes can form any conception of the aggregate saving that would be effected by 

 such change as would result from national ownership, and which may safely be estimated 

 as equal to 2} per cent, of tlie entire cost of the railway service, or $2.5,000,000 per annum. 



With the government operating the railways there would be a great reduction in 

 the number of men emploj-ed in towns entered by more than one line. For instance take 

 a town where there are three or more railways and we find three (or more) full fledged 

 staffs, three (or more) expensive up-town freight and ticket ofBees, three (or more) separ- 

 ate sets of all kinds of otfleials and employes, and three (or more) separate depots and 

 yards to be maintained. 



Under government control these staffs — except in very large cities — would be re- 

 duced to one, and all trains would ruu into one centrally located depot; freight aud pas- 

 sengers be transferred without present cost, annoyance and friction, and public conveni- 

 ence and comfort subserved and added to in manner and degree almost inconceivable. 



Economies which would be effected by such stafi reductions would more than offset 

 any additions to the force likely to be made at the instance of politicians, thus eliminat- 

 ing that objection, and such saving may be safely estimated at 120,000,000 per annum. 



With the nation owning the railways the great number of expensive attorneys now 

 employed, with all the attendant corruption of the fountains of Justice, can be dispensed 

 with and there will be no corporations to take from the bench the best legal minds by 

 offering three or four times the federal salary; nor will there be occasion for a Justice of 

 the Supreme Court of Kansas to render a decision that acorporation chartered by Kansas 

 for the sole purpose of building a railway in that State has the right and power, under 

 such charter, to guarantee the bonds of corporations building railways in Old or New 

 Mexico, and shortly after writing such decision be carted all over the seaboard States in 

 one of the luxurious private cars of such corporation. Under national ownership such 

 judges would pay their traveling expenses in the ordinary manner and not half as many 

 judges would travel on passes. There are many judges whose decisions any number of 

 passes would not affect, but if passes are not to have any effect upon legislation and liti- 

 gation why are congressmen, legislators, judges and other court officials singled out for 

 this kind of martyrdom? If the men who attain these positions remained private citi- 

 zens would passes be thrust upon them? 



Although the rei)i)rts of the Victorian Commissioners show in detail all the ex. 

 penditures of railway administration, y et not one dollar is set down for attorneys' salaries 

 or for legal expenses, and it is presumed that the ordinary law officers of the government 

 attend to the little legal business arising, and yet, judging from reports made by Kansas 

 roads, tlie expenditures of the corporate owned railways of the United States for attorneys 

 and other legal expenses are at least two per cent, of the entire cost of operating the roads 

 and yearly aggregate some $14,000,000, all of which is taken directly from railway users, 

 and is a direct tax, which would be saved under national ownership, as United States dis- 

 trict attorneys could attend to such legal business as might arise. This expeniture is 

 incurred in endless controversies between the corporations; in wrecking railways; in 

 plundering the shareholders; in contending against state and federal regulations; in 

 manipulating elections and legislation, aud in wearing out such citizens as seek legal re- 

 dress for some of the manj' outrageous acts of oppression practiced by the corporations. 

 Once the government was in control, these lawyers would be relegated to some employ, 

 nient where they would do less harm, even if not engaged in a more honorable vocation 

 than that of trying to defeat justice by the use of such questionable means as the control 

 of the vast revenues of the corporations placed in their hands. 



Is it possible that raihvaj- companies can legitimatelj' use anything like |14,000.000 

 yearly in protecting their rights in the courts? 



The Dresident of the Union Pacific tells us that : "The courts are open to redress 



