Few men who have studied the question, and who are free to make a frank
statement of their views, see much hope for a “square deal” in railroad
rates under private ownership. Most of those who really want a square
deal, however, are giving the President their moral support, not because
they expect him to solve the problem with his formula of “control,” but
because they feel that the agitation he has caused and is fomenting will
inure to the benefit of the public ownership and operation idea. His
opponents charge as much—and they are correct. Many of their arguments
against control are valid, too, if we grant that private ownership in
this age of our civilization is best. Of course, we do not grant that.
It seems certain at this writing (March 4) that the Hepburn-Dolliver bill
will become a law—one of those dead letters, so many of which already
encumber our Federal and State statute books. That it cannot and will not
be enforced, except in a few spectacular instances to fool the multitude,
is as certain as anything in human affairs. The roads will continue to
take all that the traffic will bear, to give rebates, and to water stock
in the good old way. If any doubt this, let them read the intensely
interesting letters in various newspapers sent out each week from
Washington by Lincoln Steffens. Mr. Steffens has, after most thorough
investigation, reached the conclusion that our people are suffering not
so much because of bribery and corruption as from having abdicated in
favor of the railroads and other big corporations. It is not necessary
now for a railroad corporation to bribe a congressman or senator—because
most of these supposed people’s representatives are actually the railroad
representatives, and many of them heavy stockholders.
Mr. Steffens can lay no claim to a patent on this information by right of
original discovery, for Populists said the same thing (only not so aptly,
perhaps), twelve to fifteen years ago. But he is reaching an audience
that the Populists did not and possibly never could reach. And he tells
the story so well that we must accord him the highest meed of praise. I
cannot refrain from quoting a paragraph concerning the spectacle he sees
in Washington (New York _World_, March 4):
“We, the people of the United States, are the petitioners.
(For railroad rate legislation). We are coming here asking
through the President that that bill (Hepburn-Dolliver) be
passed so as to relieve us from certain abuses practised
everywhere by our chartered common carriers, the railroads.
And the representatives of those railroads and their allied
corporations sit here enthroned; and they decide upon our case.
They may decide in our favor but—the intolerable fact of it all
is—they decide. They rule; they may be good rulers; but they
rule.”
That is the deliberate statement of a man who has gained an enviable
reputation for thorough-going investigation. He is not a demagogue or a
writer of penny-dreadfuls. He is on the ground and supports every one of
his general statements with concrete examples.
Mr. Steffens blames the people for the present state of affairs. I
heartily agree with him. But I believe we should try to reason out where
the first big mistake was made and arrive at a conclusion as to the best
way out of the difficulty, unless, perchance, our people really like the
rule of railroad oligarchy. I believe it is a useless task to chide the
people for lack of civic righteousness, for indifference, for supineness,
for failure to go to the primaries, etc., unless we point out clearly how
complete sovereignty may be secured. It is useless to scold a man for
not filling his lungs with oxygen, if you advise him to stay in a room
overcharged with carbonic acid gas.
The present state of affairs is due primarily to two great causes, or
really to one cause operating through two different channels:
(_a_) The private ownership of railroads.
(_b_) The private control of the issue and circulation of money.
The latter cause, in my judgment, is immeasurably greater than the
former; but public opinion is now directed toward the former, so that
a discussion of it is sure of a careful hearing. I do not insist that
permitting the private ownership of railroads was an irremediable
mistake; in fact, there is much good argument in favor of the contention
that under private ownership the roads were developed faster and better
than they, in all likelihood, would have been under public ownership. And
we may admit, without at all prejudicing our case, that in the evolution
of railroading, private ownership was best at the start. This is not
capable of demonstration—but we need not quarrel over it.
A railroad is a highway; and a highway is one of the attributes of
sovereignty. Whoever owns and controls the road is to that extent a
sovereign. And under our aggravated system of _laissez faire_, ownership
and control always go together, except with the slightest modifications.
Hence, with private ownership of railroads, it was inevitable that we
should reach just such a state of affairs as Mr. Steffens pictures.
Why shouldn’t “representatives of those railroads and their allied
corporations” sit here enthroned?
The owners of those roads are absolute sovereigns over the principal
avenue for the distribution of commodities; and under our highly
developed methods of production, with extreme division of labor, a great
distribution of commodities is absolutely essential. With power to tax at
will all users of highways, their owners can control, in a great measure,
all productive industry.
I am not a believer in total depravity. I can see no necessity or reason
for calling railroad magnates hard names, or accusing them of unpatriotic
scheming for power—except, possibly, for the purpose of arousing a
lethargic people to a sense of their own wrongs. Being an actual
sovereign, because owning the highways—the real, vital highways—and
possessing the power to tax, I can understand how the railroads were,
in a great measure, compelled to unite _de jure_ and _de facto_
sovereignty. With non-railroad or anti-railroad men in the legislative,
administrative and judicial bodies, “sand-bagging” and hold-ups were
common. In self-defense (for no man ever lived who likes to be deprived
of power), the railroads bribed and corrupted. They were by no means the
sole culprits. The taker of a bribe is just as despicable as the giver.
But gradually the system evolved to its present state—the union of all
sovereign powers. The Government persisted in its refusal to go into
the railroad business—so the railroads quite naturally went into the
governing business.
We cannot undo what has been done. We cannot turn back the wheels of time
and begin all over again with public ownership of railroads; but we can,
and I think we will, in not many years hence, take over the railroads
and make them public property, operating them by Government officials.
The union of sovereign powers is now complete: the owners of highways
and “their allied corporations,” by their representatives, are now
enthroned as the actual Government. This is as it should be, except that
the ownership is too limited. _It should be made to include the whole
people._
[Illustration: _Will It Come to this at Niagara?_
_Morris, in Spokane Spokesman Review_]
[Illustration: “_What, Doctor, All of This?_”
_Warren, in Boston Herald_]
[Illustration: _Puzzle.—Which Way Is He Going?_
_Handy, in Duluth News Tribune_]
[Illustration: _R. R. Magnate: I cannot tell a lie. I am going to do it
with my little hatchet._
_Handy, in Duluth News Tribune_]
[Illustration: THE SACRIFICE