Germany tried private railways for 25 years, and Austria tried them over a quarter of a century, and they have tried the two methods side by side ever since the public system was organized. In New Zealand, also, and Australia the two systems have been tried side by side. And in every one of these countries where they have thoroughly tried both systems the conclusion by an overwhelming consensus of opinion is that public railways serve the public interests best, and also make lower rates and serve the people at less total cost. Switzerland, after a careful study of both systems in various parts of the world, came to the same conclusion, and her people voted 2 to 1 to transfer the railways to public ownership and operation. All this is very strong evidence, and if we turn from the tangled web of an international comparison of averages and look at the principles and causes at work in the case, it will be clear that public ownership tends to lower rates as well as to conserve the higher wealth.

In the same country and under similar conditions otherwise than in respect to ownership and control, public ownership tends as a rule to make lower rates than private ownership. This tendency results from the fundamental difference of aim between the two systems. Private monopoly aims at dividends for stockholders; public ownership aims at service for all. A normal public institution aims at the public good, while a normal private monopoly aims at private profit. It serves public interest also, but such service is incidental, and not the primary purpose. It serves the public interest so long as it runs along in the same direction and is linked with private profit, but when the public interest departs from or runs counter to the interests owning or controlling the system, the public interests are subordinated.

The conflict between public and private interest is specially strong in the matter of rates. The rate-level that yields the greatest profit is much higher than the rate-level that affords the greatest service, or the greatest service without deficit; and since private monopoly aims at profit it seeks the higher rate-level. Public ownership aims at service, not at profit, and therefore gravitates to the lower rate-level, where traffic and service are greater.^[419]

There need be no hesitation, therefore, on economic grounds about pressing toward the dominance of public interest, either in the form of regulation, or, when political conditions justify it, in the more complete form of public ownership. And this dominance of public interest is the only thing that can eliminate unjust discrimination and establish an impartial railway service.

The State railways of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, and the Anglo-Saxon republics of South Africa and Australasia are absolutely free from unjust discrimination. There are no complaints or suspicions on that score. Shippers know to a certainty that their rivals are paying the same charges that they are. Even the most strenuous opponents of public railways do not accuse them of favoritism. The railways privately operated in Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, are also free from discrimination. Thorough public control, natural honesty, and lack of overwhelming temptation have combined to produce a pure administration. In Prussia, the Government, strong as it was, did not succeed in preventing discrimination on the private railways. President A. T. Hadley, of Yale, says: “Where the system of granting special rates becomes deeply rooted a great many are given without any principle at all, through the caprice or favoritism of the railroad companies and their agents.” The revelations made before the Hepburn Committee, as to the practice of railroads in the matter of secret rates were simply appalling. This is the most indefensible part of the whole system of railroad management. It is characteristic that Bismarck, who always chose his fighting ground with skill, made this a main base of operations in his contest against private railroad policy in Prussia. The Prussian Cabinet in the argument for the nationalization of the railways submitted to the Parliament in 1879 made the following statement:

“The principles of the publicity of the rates and the equal treatment of all shippers which are embodied in the railroad legislation of all countries, are liable, as experience has shown, to be circumvented on account of the competing interests of the railroads, and also by individual interests which have influence with the managements. The granting of these secret advantages in transportation in the most diversified ways to individual shippers, and in particular the so-called rebate system, is the most injurious misuse of the powers granted to railroad corporations. It renders government control of rates impossible, makes the competition between the different lines, as well as that of the shippers dependent on them, dishonorable and unfair, carries corruption among the railroad employés, and leads more and more to the subordination of the railroad management to the special interests of certain powerful cliques. It is the duty of the government to oppose this evil, to uphold the principle of the equal treatment of all shippers, and to enforce the legislative regulations on this subject. The importance of this problem is only equalled by the difficulty of its solution.”

The problem was not solved till the railways were nationalized, and then discrimination disappeared completely. I was not able to find a shipper in Germany nor anywhere in Europe who knew, or had heard or had even a suspicion, of the granting of any rebate or concession of any kind by the German roads. Many of them did not stop with negative statements but asserted positively that concessions could not be obtained. The nearest I came in my search for a German fraud was the discovery of an English-Italian fraud on the German roads. Leading business men in Italy told me that while they could get no concessions from the German roads directly, they could do it indirectly on transcontinental shipments by means of a trick of the English traffic managers. They made their bargains with the English manager, and he would pay a fictitious claim for damages in transit, and then write the German office that he paid so much for damages to the goods and that as it was not known in what part of the journey the goods were injured the German system must stand its part of the loss. They have to resort to fraud to get a discount on the German railways. The principal motives to discrimination are absent and the dangers to the guilty official are very great. His employers, the railway management, and the Government back of it, are unalterably opposed to the granting of unjust favors to any shipper. If a traffic man should depart from the path of impartiality the public examiners would be certain to find it out, and the traffic man would lose his job. The railway management is in the closest touch with the people through the local and national councils representing commercial bodies, labor, manufacturing, agricultural, and other industrial interests. The law requires the railway managers to consult these representative councils, and their recommendations as to rates, time-tables, and other matters of public interest are carefully considered and acted upon so far as reasonably possible.

In France the first railway manager I asked about secret discriminations said: “There is no such thing in France. The criminal law is very severe and it would mean imprisonment. There were complaints of favoritism a dozen years ago, but there have been none in recent years.” Other railway men told me substantially the same thing. But very different ideas were expressed by representatives of shipping interests and others. Here are some of their statements: “The railroads hold manufacturers and merchants at their mercy. They favor the great, and put the burdens on the little fellows. The tariffs are full of special rates, and 80 or 85 percent of these special rates are made simply for some favored merchant or manufacturer. The minister can reject or approve a tariff as a whole, but has no detailed power over one bad rate. If he retires a tariff the old one comes into effect. It is true that complaints are not made. What is the use? The danger is too great. Where is the merchant who dare undertake a campaign against the great companies?” I was assured that the statement of M. Cawes, vol. iv, p. 136, of the “Cours d’Économique politique,” was still true: “The benefit of reduced tariffs is accorded upon secret approaches and solicitations; the companies dispense at their will industrial prosperity and ruin.” The discrimination between localities is very great, owing largely to the way in which the railways are laid out. And “the companies defeat the national protective tariff by letting foreign goods ride more cheaply than French goods.” For example, American wheat from Havre to Paris pays 18 francs per ton, while French wheat from Ferte-Bernard to Paris, 37 miles less distance, pays 20 francs a ton. If the nation desires to favor the importation of foreign products, well and good, but it is a curious state of things for the Government to adopt a protective policy and then permit private railways to reverse, overrule, and nullify that policy.

We have already had occasion to throw a side light on English railroad methods in describing the way in which Italian rebaters use the elasticity of the English railway system to get fictitious damages. I had to go to Italy to find the true character of the English railway conscience. The railway men in England won’t tell. And nobody else, who will tell, knows. Yet the English traffic man, though willing to pay fake damage claims on proper occasions, is innocent of “flying tariffs,” terminal railway abuses, systematic underbilling, classification jugglery, and other preferential paraphernalia that belong to an up-to-date railway system over here. The last case of personal discrimination in rates that caused any stir was tried about 6 years ago and the preference was so small that one of our trust magnates, used to looking at large concessions, would not have been able to find it without a microscope. Nevertheless a considerable number of complaints (more than a hundred a year on the average) came before the Board of Trade and the Railway Commissioners under the traffic acts of 1888 and 1894. The Secretary of the Board of Trade tells me that these complaints relate chiefly to “high rates, poor facilities, and discriminations.” About half the complaints charge excessive rates which amount in most cases, on the face of the complaint, to discrimination between places or commodities. A large number of complaints concern higher charges for short hauls than for longer hauls on the same line, and another large group allege disproportionate charges or higher rates for shorter distances as compared with the rates on other lines. A fourth group, containing about 25 percent of all the cases, includes complaints of delay, overcharges, refusal of facilities or privileges accorded others, personal preferences in rates, etc. For example the London and Northwestern charged the complainant 12 cents a ton up to 20 miles for hauling coal, while charging the complainant’s competitors only 9 cents. Preferential treatment was alleged in the rates given to rival shipping companies for the conveyance of goods from Hull to places in Yorkshire. A coal shipper complained that the Midland Railway had for many years made a practice of allowing a rebate of 6 cents a ton to large dealers, and that in the lists of rates furnished the complainant no mention was made of this rebate or allowance, though other rebates were mentioned. The Midland replied that the system had been in operation since 1889, when the company gave notice as required by law, in the public rate-books, that they would allow a rebate to traders whose annual tonnage exceeded 25,000 tons.

The English law does not object to the paying of a commission on a large amount of traffic provided the same discount is given to all shippers who attain the stated volume of business, but a higher commission to one big shipper than to another big shipper is vigorously repressed. A case of this kind was decided by the Railroad Commission in 1901. The court found that the Midland Railway had given Rickett, Smith & Company, coal dealers, a preference of ¼ of one percent in rebates on their annual traffic account, and it enjoined the railway and allowed damages to the complaining shippers. Some 75 suits were entered by different shippers for this one cause. In the same report 28 cases are listed relating to discrimination in brewery traffic, and 16 other applications for injunctions against undue preference in respect to facilities, rates on coke, brick, flour and grain, and other commodities to certain shippers or particular places, and one request from the Inverness Chamber of Commerce for an order enjoining the railways from selling season tickets to big shippers (with a traffic worth $1,200 to $5,000 or more a year) at lower rates than they will sell them to ordinary passengers. This last application was dismissed by the court. England does not object to premiums on volume, provided all shippers of equal size receive the same treatment. That’s the principle the Trusts believe in; if vigorously worked the principle is a powerful trust builder.

The English Commission has power to enjoin undue preference in rates or facilities and give damages for the same, to fix reasonable charges in some cases, and to order rates increased since the revision of 1892 to be reduced to the previous level on proof of unreasonableness.

In the last report at hand, dated 1903, and relating to the year 1902, there are 270 odd cases, 95 of which charge undue preference, and as these matters come first before the Board of Trade, which does not grant an appeal to the Commission unless it believes there is cause of action, the probability is that all or nearly all of these applications are based on a real discrimination.^[420] It appears that 72 of the suits are for damages growing out of the Rickett rebate case; the rest are scattering. A few examples will show their character: 1. Application for order enjoining railways to desist from undue preference to complainant’s competitors through rebates on flour. 2. For injunction against railways granting preferences to the firm of Leethan & Sons on their traffic. This case was tried, the preference found, and the injunction granted. 3. Undue preferences to certain manufacturers of pig iron in the rates on coke. 4. Undue preference to a certain shipping company through superior facilities and lower rates than were given to others on the same goods and the same routes. Case settled before trial. 5. Undue preference to Corral & Company by rebates on coal to certain stations while refusing to make the same allowances to other shippers. 6. Charging higher rates than E. on coal to the same point. Case tried, undue preference found. 7. Refusal of allowances for cartage made to others. 8. Refusal to supply cars in due proportion. 9. Preference of competing millers and subjecting traffic of applicant to undue prejudice. 10. Preference of brewers at Burton and Lichfield by low rates and terminal allowances. 11. Preferences in favor of brick-makers in Nuncaton and Tamworth by assessing the weights of their bricks lower than the bricks of complainants. 12. Allowing 93 cents a ton for services in loading and unloading, etc., and refusing similar allowances for similar services by other shippers. 13. Undue preference through higher rates on coal for domestic use than on coal for export, etc.

The English Railway Act of 1888 provides that “no railway company shall make any difference in the tolls, rates or charges made for, or any difference in the treatment of home and foreign merchandise, in respect of the same or similar services.” But this part of the law has been constantly and vigorously violated as we shall see in a moment. The main aim of the English Government has been to keep the railways from lifting the rates or overcharging, and it has carried this to a point which, with the strenuous provisions against grade crossings and in respect to fencing and other safety measures, has gone far to discourage English railway development. The companies submit classifications and schedules of maximum rates and charges to the Board of Trade, which hears all objections and tries to arrive at an agreement with the companies. The agreed tariffs, or, in cases where no agreement is reached, the tariffs the Board thinks ought to be adopted, are embodied in Bills, introduced to Parliament, and after hearing if need be enacted into law. Thus Parliament enacts a tariff of maximum charges, and the law forbids discrimination, and “whenever it is shown that any railway company charges one trader or class of traders, or the traders in any district, lower tolls, rates, or charges for the same or similar merchandise, or lower tolls, rates, or charges for the same or similar services, than they charge to other traders, or classes of traders, or to the traders in another district, or make any difference in treatment in respect of any such trader or traders, the burden of proving that such lower charge or difference in treatment does not amount to an undue preference shall lie on the railway company.” The long-haul abuse is met by a provision free from any ambiguous “similar circumstances and conditions” clause. “The Commissioners shall have power to direct that no higher charge shall be made to any person for services in respect of merchandise carried over a less distance than is made to any other person for similar services in respect of the like description and quantity of merchandise carried over a greater distance on the same line of railway.” Section 31, provides that if any person believes a railway is making an unreasonable charge, or treating him in any respect in an oppressive or unreasonable manner he may complain to the Board of Trade, which shall endeavor to settle the difficulty by conciliation and arbitration. If this is not possible, and the case comes within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission the Board will give the plaintiff a certificate to take the matter before the Commission for adjudication. Under Section 1 of the Act of 1894 complaints may be made of the unreasonable increase of any rate, directly or indirectly, since December 31, 1892, and if the Board cannot effect an amicable settlement the complainant may submit the case to the Railway Commission for judgment. Some Northampton traders at once began proceedings under this law, and after 2 years of litigation at a cost to the plaintiffs of $10,000 they got a verdict, but the companies declined to accept the case as a test, so that any one who feels aggrieved by an excessive rate must spend the time and money necessary to carry his case through the Commissioners’ Court to a decision.

The Board of Trade reports to Parliament every few years all the complaints presented to it and the disposition thereof. By the last report at hand, issued in 1902 and covering the years 1899, 1900, and 1901, it appears that nearly 3,000 complaints (2,946) have been filed from 1888 to 1902,—2,032 related to “unreasonable increase of rates” since 1892, and in 101 of these cases, when no amicable settlement could be made, the Board gave certificates of appeal to the Commission, but only a few of the complaints were carried up. Complaint of excessive rates (not cases of increase) numbered 423, 88 of them in the last 3 years reported: higher charge for shorter distance than for a longer haul on the same line, 66, 11 of them in the last 3 years; disproportionate rates, or higher charge for a given distance on one line than on another 157, 37 of them in the last 2 years; and 268 miscellaneous cases, 95 of which were entered in the last 3 years. About 4 percent of the complaints relate to canals, the rest are railway cases. It takes 50 large pages to state the 325 complaints entered in the last 3 years. A very large part, practically all in fact, are either in form or in substance, cases of discrimination; even in complaints of excessive rates the gist of the charge is usually that the rates complained of are excessive as compared with other rates the companies make.^[421]

A few further concrete illustrations from recent years may be of interest. 1. Refusal of free cartage to a manufacturer though another mill further away had the benefit of free delivery. 2. Refusal of allowance for loading, etc., on private siding though such allowance was made to a rival firm. 3. Rates on coal from mines at Leigh and Abram to Winnington, 26 miles, were 50 cents a ton against 42 cents from the mine at Haydock, 29 miles. 4. Complaints of delay, insufficient facilities, etc. 5. Fourteen complaints of increased charges for conveyance of small parcels in freight-train transportation and that companies were not following a decision of the Railway Commission. One of the complaints on the ground just stated was filed against the railways generally by the Co-operative Wholesale Society with practically 10,000,000 people back of it in interest and sympathy. The companies revised the schedule and reduced the rates. 6. Refusal to grant complainant the same facilities for warehousing traffic as are granted to their competitors. The Board succeeded in removing the preference without trial. 7. A rate of $11.25 on india-rubber goods from Birmingham to Newcastle-on-Tyne against $8.95 on the same goods intended for export. 8. One shipper stated that he was charged $9.75 for a carload of coal (6 tons) from Cork to Baltimore, while the Baltimore Fishery Schools were charged only $5.10 for the same service. After the usual correspondence by the Board of Trade the matter was settled by the railroads agreeing to give the plaintiff the same rate as the Fishery Schools. 9. Another shipper alleged that since he had sent his traffic from Methven via the North British route from Perth instead of the Caledonian, the company had delayed his traffic at Perth while other traffic was sent on; that the company had deprived him of the use of facilities formerly enjoyed, and had stopped his credit. This reads almost like an American case.

The long and short haul cases also remind one of home in about the same ratio that a raspberry bush reminds one of a full grown oak. Both personal preference and the long-haul discrimination are comparatively rare in England. The greatest resemblance to America is in the rates on imports. The English railway manager has as good an appetite for foreign goods as any American manager, and in this matter the law does not tie him up as it does in so many respects with its maximum rates and large discretion in the Railway Commissioners to prevent excessive rates and undue preference. Foreign linen goes from Liverpool to London for $6.10 a ton while home linen pays $9.25 or 50 percent more. Foreign woolen and worsted goods are carried from Manchester to London for $6.10, against $9.75 or 60 percent more for English goods. Foreign timber travels from Hartlepool to Wimeaton for $3.12 a ton while English timber pays $7.50 or 130 percent more. English dressed meats from Liverpool to London $12.50 a ton, American meat $6.25, just half the home charge. American cattle slaughtered at the wharf in Glasgow, $11.25 to London, home beef, $19.25. Cheese goes all the way from New York past Chelford and other English stations for less than the rate from those stations to London.

“Foreign hops are conveyed from Boulogne, via Folkestone, to London at $4.37 per ton, while the charge from Ashford, on the same line of railway and much nearer to London, is $8.75—or just twice the amount for about half the distance.... The rates for imported butter, cheese, bacon, lard, and wool from Southampton Docks to London, distance seventy-six miles, is $1.50 per ton. From Botley in the same county, and a similar distance, the rate for all these goods is $4.80, or 219 percent more than for foreign stuff. The difference in rates between Southampton Dock station (foreign) and the Southampton Town station (home) is as follows: Hops $1.50 and $5; apples $1.25 and $3.22; pressed hay $1.25 and $2.50; eggs $1.66 and $5. Further, Professor Hunter showed that while French fruit is charged at the rate of 4½ cents per ton per mile to London by the South Eastern, the same company charge Kentish farmers 11 cents per ton per mile, or more than double.”^[422] The London Times declares that “there are no arguments within the range of human ingenuity that will convince a Sussex hop-grower of the equity of an arrangement by which foreign hops are brought from the other side of the Channel for less than he has to pay to get across Surrey.... For nothing can shake the belief of the home producer, and in our view nothing ought to shake it, in the argument that if these low rates pay the companies, he is shamefully overcharged, while if they do not pay, he is still overcharged to cover the loss and bring up the average.”

It is evident that England is far from being free from unfair discrimination. A system of maximum rates, with penalties for undue preference, and a commission able to countermand an unreasonable increase of rates, is not sufficient.

In Canada a railway commission of three appointed by the Governors in Council for ten years (but removable at any time by the Governors in Council for cause) has absolute power over rates, classification, speed, safety appliances, etc.^[423] The railways may submit tariffs, but the Board can approve or disapprove of them in whole or in part, and prescribe such rates and classification as it deems best, and the railroads cannot charge either more or less than the rates authorized by the Commission. All undue preferences between persons and localities in rates or facilities is forbidden, but “the tolls for larger quantities, greater numbers, or longer distances may be proportionately less than the tolls for smaller quantities or numbers, or shorter distances, if such tolls are, under substantially similar circumstances, charged equally to all persons. The Board shall not approve or allow any toll, which for the like description of goods or for passengers, carried under substantially similar circumstances and conditions in the same direction over the same line, is greater for a shorter than for a longer distance, the shorter being included in the longer distance, unless the Board is satisfied that, owing to competition, it is expedient to allow such a toll.” The burden of proof is on the company to show that any difference of treatment does not amount to an unjust discrimination. And “the Board may determine, as questions of fact, whether or not traffic is or has been carried under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, and whether there has, in any case, been unjust discrimination, or undue or unreasonable preference or advantage, or prejudice or disadvantage, within the meaning of this Act, or whether in any case the company has or has not complied with the provisions of this and the last preceding section; and may by regulation declare what shall constitute substantially similar circumstances and conditions, or unjust or unreasonable preferences, advantages, prejudices, or disadvantages within the meaning of this Act, or what shall constitute compliance or noncompliance with the provisions of this and the last preceding section relating to discrimination, long-haul,” etc. No Supreme Court rulings can knock out this Commission, for it has clear authority in the law to interpret its provisions as it deems best, to accomplish the purpose in view. Whether this law will work well or ill is not yet apparent.

In Holland, where the railways are owned by the State and operated by private companies under lease from the Government, the Ministry assured me that unfair discriminations between persons and places do not exist, and I have every reason to believe they are right. The President of the Government railways in Denmark said: “There are no discriminations either on the public or company railroads. It would not be possible to give such favors in Denmark.” And in reference to my description of some of the American methods of favoritism, he said that nothing of the kind had been attempted; and if it should be, every one concerned in the transaction would be punished, and the guilty officials would lose their positions.

Railway men and publicists of Norway and Sweden tell me that there is no discrimination. It would not be permitted. There are no provisions against it in the law. Nothing of the kind has ever been known.

A high official of the Japanese Government, whom I met in this country a few months ago, said in answer to a question in which I stated some of our discrimination methods, large and small: “The government fixes maximum and minimum rates, and the companies are free between these limits, except that the Minister keeps control sufficient to compel fair rates if the companies should try to discriminate or otherwise make unjust rates. We have had nothing like the Beef Trust or Standard Oil discriminations you describe, nor any personal favoritism in rate-making, but the government means to prevent the possibility.”

The railways of New Zealand are not troubled with complaints of discrimination, nor those of New South Wales or Queensland or Victoria. And in these boiling and bubbling republics, if there were the slightest suspicion of a reason for attacking the Government management on this ground, it would be done by the political opponents of the administrations. South Australia has had one case of alleged favoritism. The complaint was that the Railway Commissioner gave a reduced rate on carload lots of certain goods to certain points, to meet water competition. A shipper, desiring to send his goods at low rates in the opposite direction, asked the Commission to give him a reduction equal to that accorded on the traffic above mentioned. The Commissioner said he would give the same reductions if the shipments were made in carload lots. The complaining shipper could not do this, as his trade was not sufficient. The matter was brought before Parliament, and Parliament sustained the Commissioner. The Parliament of each of these republics acts as the people’s board of directors of all public works, calling the managers to account; and any member, from the remotest rural district, can ask the Ministry and the railway management any question he chooses, and compel full disclosure of the facts. Secrecy is practically impossible.

The Government railways of Natal and Central South Africa are equally free from secret concessions and favoritisms of every kind. In talking with the manager of the Central South African Government railway, I explained the nature of the favors granted to the big shippers in the United States, using the Beef Trust, Salt Trust, Oil Trust, Fuel Company, etc., as illustrations, and said: “Suppose a big concern tried to get special rates or concessions of some kind on your railroads, and made a secret agreement with the railway management?”

“They couldn’t do it.”

“Why not? Human nature is the same in South Africa as in America. Suppose they made some traffic man a partner in their profits or brought pressure enough on him in some way to get a concession?”

“It wouldn’t be possible.”

“Well, why? Suppose it were possible, what would happen?”

“The Government auditors would find it out, and the manager would lose his position.”

“Couldn’t he cover up the thing?”

“Not for any length of time.”

“The people would have a fit if anything like that were attempted,” said a member of the manager’s staff.

“You have no attempts to secure preference, then?”

“No it is not even attempted.”

If those who employ and discharge the traffic managers desire discrimination or aim at results which can be forwarded by discrimination, then discrimination will exist unless the public control is strong enough to keep the big shippers and the people in possession of the railroads from carrying out their purposes.

If, on the other hand, those who employ and discharge the traffic men are sincerely opposed to discrimination and aim at results that can only be secured by just and impartial management, then the traffic man who is guilty of favoritism will lose his job, and the utmost possible discouragement is put upon unjust discrimination.

Once more the vital conclusions seem to be, the necessity of the dominance of public interest, and the value of being in possession or having your own servants in possession instead of merely giving orders to the servants of another in possession who may or may not obey, and who are in no danger of losing their positions by disobeying you and may gain greatly by it—the value of having public interest at the helm to steer the vessel in a safe course, instead of keeping private interest at the wheel while public interest stands on a steam tug with a big whistle and shouts orders through the fog to the steersman on the passenger liner who is more than half inclined to steer the ship as he pleases, and gets his pay and employment from men who do not wish the public orders carried out, and whose instructions vary widely therefrom. You cannot expect the servants of others to obey your orders as well as your own servants, especially if the said servants of others are employed by persons whose interests are largely contrary to your own. Neither can a commander be as sure of winning a victory at the head of an army trained in the camp of the enemy owing allegiance to them, and constantly receiving orders from them, as he could at the head of his own proper troops.^[424]

Is it fair to try to control in your own interest property that does not belong to you? It is fair to try to exert sufficient control to secure impartial treatment of persons, places, and industries; but can this be done without fixing rates, and if this is resorted to will it not result either in squeezing the life out of railway enterprise or in a vicious struggle for mastery with new evasions of law and further intensification of political evils, and corporate control of Government? You will either deprive the owner of the right to determine the price at which the product of his plant shall be sold, thus controlling his profit and sapping his energy and incentive, or you will put a premium on political corruption by making it necessary for the railroad owner to control the Government in order to control his business and its profits. You will check the development of railways and drive capital into industries where the owners are free to fix prices, or you will check the movement toward political purity. Public control in some form is absolutely necessary in order to safeguard the public interest. The only question relates to the form and degree. Is effective and adequate public control of transport, with the unity, freedom, and hearty co-operation that should characterize all business ventures, possible without public ownership? And if not, isn’t it true that the economic and governmental changes necessary to make public ownership safe and successful constitute the essence of the ultimate railroad problem?

If the railways were united into a national system under a great leader like James J. Hill, or A. J. Cassatt, free to operate the roads on business principles, untrammelled by the spoils system or any political control, backed by a public interest that would not tolerate favoritism, partyism, political influence or graft in any form, working with public aims and public motives instead of private aims and motives, managing the roads for the whole people as stockholders instead of for a small part of the people as stockholders, paid, in common with the whole body of employees, on the basis of a fixed remuneration plus an additional compensation proportioned to efficiency, and in constant consultation with local and national councils representing commercial, manufacturing, mining, labor, and agricultural organizations and interests, we should have a railway system and management whose efficiency would astonish the world, whose methods would bear the light, and whose administration would be an honor to twentiethcentury civilization.