The evening times. [volume], February 26, 1907, Image 3

About The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914

Image provided by: State Historical Society of North Dakota

                
Ui'i
I
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26,1907.
University Speakers in the In
ter State Debate at Bismarck
Did Good Work.
WOULD BE UIMLE TO
EI THE
On a Business Basis—Federal Govern*
ment Conld Not Get Men to Do the
Work on Acconut of the Manner In
Which Advances Are Made—North
west Situation Argued as Point
Against Government Ownership.
The victory of North Dakota over
Montana in the deflate at Bismarck
last week has been the cause for much
joy at the institution for the last few
days. The members of the team,
Messrs. Brennan, Husband and Cooper
are receiving the congratulations of
their many admirers, and there is
nothing too good for them. The ad
dresses made by the North Dakota de
baters are Interesting, and were as
follows:
Transportation difficulties in the
United. States are much greater than
in any foreign countries. Our poli
tical and business conditions make our
railroad problem vastly more difficult
than that of any older nation of Eu
rope. Therefore, before we entrust
to a new system the great railroad
Industry upon which the very welfare
of the nation depends, we must not
only know that evils in the present
system is safe and will be successful.
It must be more than an alluring the
ory. It must be a practical, working
remedy for American conditions. It
must successfully meet the two great
problems of America, a problem of
development as well as of service.
This is the tremendous burden of
proof which the opposition must meet.
If they fail to do this they will have
failed to establish their case for gov
ernment ownership.
Are a Factor.
Take the conditions In the United
States. Under the present system
have proposed and the railroads have
been a most important factor in our
prosperity. Our service compares
well with that of any foreign nation.
It is true we have evils. No system
cotild develop so rapidly and be free
from evils. The main cause lies in
the fact that until the past year the
government has not exercised its pow
er of regulation. But all necessary
power to regulate resides in the gov
ernment, and when that power is
exercised we find abuses remedied.
The American people are going to see
that power exercised. Public opinion
is aroused. With Theodore Roosevelt
leading the light, backed by men of
all parties, the people feel that the
railroads can be regulated, that abus
es can be remedied. Once exercise
the full power of control, back it
with the entire strength of our gov
ernmen and no corporation, railroad
or otherwise, can defy the law. When
the meat business or the adulterated
food business was exposed did the
government attempt ownership? No,
it applied the power of regulation and
those corporations are now glad to
obey the law. My colleague will take
up government control in detail and
will show how present evils, whether
of rates or service, can be remedied,
to the end that the American system
of private enterprise can be pre
served.
la Vnsulted*
We want no European paternalism.
Our system was found to give free
dom to the private citizen. It is not
adapted to carry on the private citi
zen's business. Our administration is
unwieldy and full of log rolling and
corporation. Thus, government own
ership is utterly unsuited to the prin
ciples and purposes of American gov
ernment. Moreover, aside from the
political difficulties of such a step
there are grave business dangers. In
the coming years must come the great
est increase in mileage and equipment
we have ever seen. And, already, the
railroads employ a million and a half
of men. They have fifteen billions of
capital. The railroad is the most im
portant industry we have, requiring
the highest ability and strictest econo
my in its management It must be
run on business principles alone or
unparalleled failure will result.
Inability Shown.
In the light of these facts, ladies
and gentlemen, this is our case against
government ownership. Government
ownership cannot meet the railroad
problem in America because of our
condition. First, because of political
difficulties and second because of busi
ness difficulties. My colleagues will
discuss the question in regard to its
business side. It is my purpose to
deal with it from the political stand
point. First, take the machinery of
our government. Let' me contrast it
with that of Germany's legislation is
dictated by her military ruler. In
her railroad Improvements, military
expediency is the deciding factor.
Moreover, Germany is confronted by
no problem of building new lines, but
merely of maintaining an old estab
lished system. How different are con
ditions in the United States. Congress
would have to handle the problem un
der government ownership and con
gress is dominated by sectional in
fluences. Appropriations must be
voted by men from all sections of the
HOLLISIER'S
Rocky Mountain Tea Nuggets
A Buiy MidldM lor Bviy Ptopte,
Brian MM Hnlth and Renewed Viftr.
A ipeelflo for Oonntlmtlon, Inattention, l,lvei
and Kidney troubles. Pimples, Eozems, Impure
Blood. Baa Brwth. Slunrlxh Bowel*. HeadMbe
ut Baeksehe. Its Roofer Mountain Tea in tab
let form. IB cents a bos. Genuine made to
HaLLiana DBUO COMPANY, iiadison, WLX
QOLDEN NUGGETS FOR SALLOW PEOPLE
T4n':
country. We have more freedom un
der this system but unfortunately, in
getting federal Improvements, politic
al pull is far more effective than the
just needs of any section or any state.
We all know the trading and log roll
ing of congress. Federal^bulldlngs
result from the polltlcan needs of con
gressmen instead of from the actual
needs of business. River and harbor
improvements sometimes go where
bulness needs them but more often
where the next election needs them.
Ninety millions are spent annually in
federal improvements. It is estimated
that one half thiB entire amount serv
es no other purpose than to fix the
fences of our shaky legislators. The
best men we have in congress who are
honest In voting for general legisla
tion, when It comes to getting money
for their constituents, are compelled
to grab It from the public purse. When
congress deals out money each section
bids for the largest amount. The larg
est amount goes to the section having
the greatest political power. The
country east of the Mississippi holds
seventy per cent of our population.
Seventy-five per cent of all appropria
tions go to that section. Undei' gov
ernment ownership the country east
of the Mississippi would demand the
greatest part of railroad improvement
The country west of the Mississippi,
with its sparse population would se
cure but a fraction of the new mileage
which it must have. In our own his
tory there is a forceful illustration of
the working of this system of appro
priations. When the government built
federal wagon roads the older settled
sections got the appropriations and the
new west went without Let the
gentlemen theorize to suit themselves,
but under government ownership con
gress would apportion railroads im
provements as other improvements are
apportioned among the states. Con
gress must vote every dollar expend
ed for every mile of new road and
every bed of new equipment and sec
tional jealousy will shape legislation
In this as in all other such matters.
Shall we place the future development
of the country under such a system?
Take an example here.at home, If
Burleigh county in the west needed
millions to develop her railroads and
Cass county in the east held the bal
ance of power, would Burleign will
ingly place herself under the power
of Cass and make her prosperity de
pend upon the liberality of a rival?
In the next ten years we in North Da
kota need five thousand miles of new
road. More than will be built in New
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois
combined. Under government owner
ship we would have to go to the politi
cian of those states for every exten
sion of new lines and every increase
of equipment. Would you trust our
future development to those sltatea
who now grab seventy-five per cent
of federal Improvements? Give to the
east the power to dictate our develop
ment compel North Dakota to ask
New York for the railroads she needs
place western prosperity under the
power of eastern politics and you will
stunt western development and crip
ple every western state. In this vital
point government ownership will fail
in America. It will not meet our prob
lem of develbpment.
Corrupted Graft.
The opposition have made much of
the fact that under private ownership
our railrqad service and our public
servants are corrupted by graft. Can
you think of any step that will mor*
completely demoralize our nation?
politics than placing the great army
of railway employees under govern
ment officials? A million and a half
of men would be under the power of
corrupt politicians. You may talk of
civil service, but place railway em
ployees under the administration and
every railway superintendent will be
a politician. Every station agent a
party worker, just as every post mast
er is at present. Federal employees
would be numerous enough to decide
every presidential election and they
are bound to be used for political pur
poses. They would mean so many
henchmen for a great federal machine,
so much more power for the corrupt
official, one more step toward perpet
uating graft and debauching our na
tional politics.
Will Be Bought.
We have corruption today because
our office holders can be bought. Un
der government ownership our office
holders can still be bought and they
will be bought. They will be dishon
est then as they are now and their
increased opportunities for graft
would make our system infinitely
worse than it is today. If our office
holders ar» dishonest now, will, rail
road operation stagger them with its
vast revenues, its fat contracts, its
political patronage waiting for the
grafter? Under the present system
they are corrupted by contract with
the single railroad corporation. Un
der government ownership they would
be bought in contact with every cor
poration that now does business with
the railroads. With corporations like
the steel trust and the American car
building company whose capital is
many times that of the railroads and
who are just as anxious to secure
favors. The idea of remedying cor
ruption by removing the private rail
road is fundamentally wrong. Where
the railroad corporation now causes
corruption of a dozen corporations
wotvld bribe our officials under gov
ernment ownership. Is this going to
purify our political system? Is this
removing the cause of corruption? It
is simply increasing its opportunity.
Our opponents would say to the cor
rupt official, "Thou wicked and un
faithful servant, thou hast been un
faithful in a few things, therefore be
hold, I will make thee ruler over
many things enter thou into the joys
of unlimited graft"
Would Be Failure.
Ladies and gentlemen, these great
W
-.
.:•
rf '$$Zi
'i'-'-v'-1
ft
•is
difficulties in our political system
would make government ownership a
failure In America. Not only would
sectional jealousy prevent develop
ment where it is most needed but cor
ruption, bad as it may be today, would
be immeasurably increased. The
gentleman of the opposition has pict
ured evils of the present system,
evils which we will show can be rem
edied by government control. He has
failed to meet the difficulties in the
way of government ownership. And
let me again call your attention to
the tremendous burden of proof which
rests upon the opposition. Unless they
meet these difficulties which I have
shown and others which my colleague
will present they will have failed to
establish their case for government
ownership.
Harry H. Cooper.
The first speaker has made plain
our policy of private ownership with
adequate control. He' has shown the
evils that must come with govern
ment ownership and operation of our
Immense railroad system. Evils com
pared with which the transfer of
private ownership sink into insignifi
cance. It is my purpose to show the
utter impracticability of this policy
from a business standpoint. The sys
tem which we need and must have
here in the United States is the sys
tem which can best fill the needs o^ a
rapidly developing country. We must
have the system that Is more progres
sive, the system that is run on busi
ness principle and will give the best
service, quantity and quality consid
ered. Government ownership is im
practicable here in the United States
because it cannot meet these require
ments. First, it cannot fill the needs
of a rapidly developing country.
Not a Reason.
The opposition have this evening
urged the present inadequacy of rail
road service in the northwest as
reason for government ownership) but
closer analysis shows this to be one
of the strongest arguments against
such a policy. The apparent inade
quacy in the northwest is due to two
things, the almost uninterrupted bliz
zards of the past month and second,
to the wonderful development and un
paralleled prosperity of the country.
Of the difficulties railway men have
had to meet this winter little need be
said. We all know that the fight
against snow and weather has been
an up hill one.' It has exhausted the
skill and energy of skilled railroad
men. Men whose interest are personal,
laborers who are under the eye of
capable njanagers. The affirmative
propose to put in their places men who
get their positions not through effi
ciency but by political pull. They pro
pose to inaugurate a system where
there is no responsibility. A system
where the only pocket-book touched
is that of the government.
New Population.
But the important reason for the
inadequacy is the wonderful develop
ment of the country with a cor
responding enormous increase of
freight and passenger traffic. More
new population has entered the five
states from Minnesota to the Pacific
than any other part of the country.
The wheat yield of these states has
Increased In the last five years 100,
000,000 bushels or 100 per cent.
Though not a manufacturing district
these products have increased twenty
five per cent. In short, the added de
mand on the Great Northern and Nor
thern Pacific in five years equals the
demand on the other roads of the
county in ten. This is the problem
which maintain government owner
ship can never cope with.
What Companies Have Done.
Let us see what the two railway
systems of the northwest have done
to meet this second difficulty of in
creased traffic and development. In
the last five years ending June 1906
the motive power had been increased
ninty per cent or nearly doubled. And
when the management saw trouble
ahead neither time nor money was
spared. Since last June these two
systems have added 120 locomotives to
their equipment, an increase of nin
teen per cent a year. Now as to
freight cars, although during the last
five years ten thousand cars have been
added to the equipment of the Great
Northern since last June, 3,772 have
been received. This is an increase in
tonnage capacity of 15.6 per cent or
thirty per cent a year.. During the
last three years the Northern Pacific
has ordered 17,850 cars and actually
received In 1906, 4,440. These fig
ures are more effective proof than any
arguments of the alertness and energy
of private management. Woulu the
government at Washington, with overy
other section of the country crying
for cars dominated by the east as my
colleague has shown, do as much 'for
these western states?
In the place of this progressive and
tried system the gentlemen propose to
put a cumbersome centralized ma
chine devoid of initiative and dep3nd
ing on the whims of congress and the
party in power. I have shown the im
mense growth of the countrs* and how
private management is endeavoring
and will ultimately succeed in meet
ing the needs. How will government
ownership and operation cope with
these difficulties? We must have more
than a visionary theory, we must
have a practical working proposition.
You may appoint railroad commission
ers if you will but there is only one
'body that can make internal improve
ments and that body is congress, a
congress already overloaded with
work. Here then Is the system which
the gentlemen propose—an unweildy,
unprogressive machine with congress
at its head congress, a busy political
body with Its sectional influences, red
tape and log-rolling. This Is the sys
tem which the gentlemen propose. Put
this system in practice in the United
States and what would be the result?
SIMPLY INDUSTRIAL STAGNATION.
ii» 1
THE EVENING TXME8, GRAND FORKS, N. D.
6
Eddy
-3/
State Tuition Fund Is
Grand Forks County Will Get $5,102.32—Total Sum is $74,
077.48—State Superintendent Stockwell.
Announces the Figures.
Bismarck, Feb. 26—The following apportionment of the state tuition fund
haa just been made by the state superintendent of public instruction.
The rate per capita from the total state tuition fund is 92 cents, divided
between a rate per capita from the interest and income fund of 90 cents and
the rate per capita from tines, taxes, etc., amounting to 2 cents:
51
lis
Is
5- a
2
a,
COUNTY. 3 S|
2 3
2
8 Q.
1 Barnes 2,549 $2,294.10
2 Benson 1,672 1,504.80
3 Billings 206 185.40
4 Bottineau 2,572 2,314.80
5 Burleigh .., 1,658 1,492.20
Cass 6,098 5,488.20
7 Cavalier
8 Dickey
9
3,137
8
r,2
10 Emmons 844 759.60
11 Foster 833 839.70
12 Grand Forks 5,546 4,991.40
13 Griggs 1,020 918.00
14 Kidder 45c 410.40
15 LaMoure 1,416 1,274.40
16 Logan 403 362.70
17 McHenry 2,862 2,575.80
18 Mcintosh 835 751.50
19 McLean 2,166 1,949.40
20 Mercer 269 242.10
21 Morton 2,177 1,959.30
22 Nelson 1,634 1,470.60
23 Oliver 259 233.10
24 Pembina 3,533 3,179.70
25 Pierce 1,159 1,043.10
26 Ramsey 2,288 2,059.20
27 Ransom 1,656 1,490.40
28 Richland 4,146 3,731.40
29 Rolette 1,676 1,508.40
30 Sargent 1,600 1,440.00
31 Stark 1,575 1,417.50
32 Steele 1,127 1,014.30
33 Stutsman 2,533 2,279.70
34 Towner 2,024 1,821.60
35 Traill 2,721 2,448.90
36 Walsih 4,245 3,820.50
37 Ward 6,142 5,527.80
38 Wells 1,653 1,487.70
39 Williams 1,380 1,242.00
40 McKenzie 155 139.50
No Inducements*
My second proposition is that the
government cannot run a business oa
business principles. In the first place
we must have capable managers. It
is true that in the highest government
positions—the highest positions mind
you, honor is a sufficient inducement
to draw good men. To get such men
the government must offer the same or
better inducements than private capi
tal. This it cannot do. The chances
of promotion are less and it Is a fact
that skilled government employees
are notoriously underpaid while un
skilled labor is overpaid.
Matter of Men.
No man is competent to run rail
roads unless he can make money for
himself. And if he can inalce money
for himself you will not find him ac
cepting a poorly paid government
office, where a man's money is invest
ed there you will find him doing his
best work, where man's treasure is
there will his heart be also." If then
a man has no personal interest in an
undertaking, if when the business
runs behind his own pocket-book is
safe Iaxiness carelessness and waste
fulness are the cnevitable results.
Would such men as Casset, McCrea or
Hill act as government railway em
ployees? Certainly not And yet to
make a success of the business we
must have men of that calibre. How
does the government get Its' men?
Look at our government Industries
and see for yourself. Graft not ability,
political influence not efficiency dicate
the offices. It is very plain that the
best ability of the country is not in
the employ of the government. And
what else can you expect. Here is a
poorly paid job with an opportunity
for graft. Who wants such a job?
The grafter. How then do you ex­
766 80
Total 80,519 $72,467.10
True, Belgium has with fair success
operated her roads but Belgium is 1-6
the sizze of North Dakota. Germany
has been partially successful in oper
ating her roads, but in Germany the
roads are built by the states the larg
est of which is smaller than Montana
and every interest is made subservient
to the military one. But in those coun
tries where government ownership has
had to meet the test of development,
in those countries where the govern
ment has had to build roads, what
has been the result? Everywhere this
policy has proven disastrous. Politics
and not business instince has directed
the building of railways. Fat con
tracts have been let through, political
influence. Official incompetence and
governmental waste have united in the
disaster. And yet the development in
these countries is as nothing compared
to the problem in the United States.
Suppose for Instance North Dakota
needs a railroad, how Is she to get it?
Do you suppose for a moment that
the congressmen from the east and
south where the balance of power
rests would allow such a measure to
pass? Certainly not. And past his
tory bears out this answer. But
granting for the sake of argument that
the bill was passed, the next question
is when would the road be built? The
slowness of government Is proverbial.
As an example, the appropriation for
the federal building in Chicago was
signed by President Cleveland some
twelve years ago, yet is only within
the last three months that Secretary
Shaw signed the draft for the last
payment. Again I ask how is such
a system to meet present American
needs? Therefore, in view of the act
ual conditions in this country, In view
of the immense problem of develop
ment this policy is impracticable.
ools
*3 t?
I!®
2
to
*3 S: 3
O O
I*
a
S
A
P.
S
a.
B. f-
33
$ 50.98
33.44
4.12
51.44
33.16
121.96
62.74
26.84
17.04
16.88
18.66
110.92
20.40
9.12
28.32
8.06
57.24
16.70
43.32
5.38
43.54
32.68
5.18
70.66
23.18
45.76
33.12
82.92
33.52
32.00
31.50
22.54
50.66
40.48
54.42
84.90
122.84
33.06
27.60
3.10
2,823.30
1,342
1,207.80
$2,345.08
1,538.24
189.52
2,366.24
1,525.36
5,610.16
2,886.04
1,234.64
783.84
776.48
858.36
5,102.32
938.40
419.52
1,302.72
370.76
2,633.04
768.20
1.992.72
247.48
2,002.84
1,503.28
238.28
3,250.36
1,066.28
2,104.96
1,523.52
3,814.32
1,541.92
1,472.00
1,449.00
1.036.S4
2,330.30
1,862.08
2,503.32
3,905.40
5,650.64
1,520.76
1.269.60
142.60
$1,610.38 $74,077.48
pect results? How do you expect
progress? How do you expect initia
tive and enterprise?
But we need efficient labor as well
as capable managers. With such
managers as I have shown you the
government gets hiring the men in
efficient labor is the result. The abili
ty of an employee under government
ownership would depend upon political
pull instead of business push and
energy. But even outside of this poll
tlcal influence the Iaxiness and in
competency of government employees
is a standing joke. Secretary Shaw,
the financial authority of the United
States, in speaking of the work of his
department said that although the
20,000 people in his service were as
gcod as government employees go he
believed that a private corporation
could do the same amount of work
with one-third the number of labor
ers.
Extravagance.
Having shown you the kind of man
agers and men the government get my
last proposition naturally follows:
That the government cannot run a
business on business principles be
cause of its extravagance and waste
fulness. In other words, the govern
ment does not heed those economies
of business on which success depends.
With such managers and labor as the
government gets, how can it? How
can a manager whose influence is poli
tical, who has no special preparation
for the business be expected to at
tend to that business, to save in re
pairs and to utilize by products. The
government printing office is a good
example of the way in which a gov
ernment- business is managed. Here
we have an immense plant worth ten
million dollars expending yearly seven
million dollars. Investigation by a
committee has shown that this plant
is turning out inferior work at from
one and one half to ten times the
price charged by private companies.
Extravagance and lack of business
management are given as the reasons.
Big wages are paid the compositors
but the man who directs this enorm
ous expenditure receives only $4,500,
probably the poorest pay for such
work in the United States. On the
first of this month the business of
printing the stamips was turned over
to the American Bank Note company,
.1
private corporation, for the reason
that the work could be done by them
enough cheaper to warrant such a
change. Put this kind of business
methods in an enormous industry like
the railroads and the disastrous result
can easily be foretold.
Something Saner.
Instead of taking this rash step let
us rather resort to the saner expedi
ent, that of government regulation.
Control has not yet been tried to any
great extent in the United States.
The railways have grown up unregu
lated and the people have just awak
ened to the fact that something must
be done. What has been done has
proven successful as my colleague will
show. If, then, government owner
ship and operation is so fraught with
political dangers, if it is utterly Im
practicable because of its very nature,
if the government cannot run this
business on business priclples, and,
finally, if this policy cannot meet the
Immense problem of development we
maintain that the federal government
should not own and operate the rail
roads.
William C. Hpsband.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentle*
men: Before venturing any further
on the waves of this discussion let
"1 "•*'^Fr
COST'S FAMOUS
CANDIES
ICECREAM
delivered anywhere at any time. Both Phones 60-L
forget a 50c Brick of Grist's Famous Ice Cream
for Next Sunday's Dinner,
us briefly summarize the main issues
of the debate. We have stood tonight
for the preservation of the private
ownership of our railway lines under
adequate control, a distinctly Ameri
can institution, one under which we
have prospered and developed so
rapidly that our commercial and in
dustrial supremacy astonishes the
world. What do the gentlement of
the affirmative stand for? They stand
for the abolition of that institution
which has of late years become a posi
tive necessity, and the substitution of
another altogether untried under Am
erican conditions, and altogether for
eign to our principles of government
and business methods. What argu
ment Is made to support their conten
tion? They say we have evils in our
railroad system. But the first speak
er for the negative showed that these
evils were of a transitory nature and
that they were as nothing compared
with the evils that would arise under
government ownership. And before
I am through I will endeavor to show
how these evils are being eliminated
by remedial legislaion. But granting
for the sake of argument that these
evils are grave granting for the sake
of argument that the evils are con
stantly growing greater, will that
make the argument of the affirmative
valid? They say that government
ownership is successful abroad. Th^t
Germany, for instance has govern
ment ownership and has no evils, and
therefore we should have government
ownership in our country. I contend
that this conclusion is false for three
reasons: First, the system as used
in Germany is not the system as advo
cated by the affirmative. Germany has
state ownership. Each state owns
and operates its own lines, referring
to the central government for gener
al supervision. But the affirmative
advocate a system in which the great
common carriers of our country are
to be owned and operated by the cen
tral gwernment at Washington, hence
there can be no analogy.
For Military Reasons.
The second reason is that Germany
owns her railroad lines for military
reasons and military reasons alone.
She is driven to this policy by reason
of her geographical position. She
knows the excitable temperament of
the French on the west, the revolu
tionary spear of the Slav and Magyar
on the south. She has had experience
with the rebellious Poles on the east,
and hence she has a broad border to
protect. How does she do it? Take
down your map and ycu will find that
the principal railroad lines of Ger
many radiate in all directions from
the capital, Berlin. These lines inter
sect the border at almost equal dis
tances. What is the reason? Here is
plainly tiisiplayed the hand of Bis
marck and of Von Moltke. It is to
trans-port troops and provisions along
these lines with the greatest facility
in time of war. But In America we
have no such military plan. We have
no such military reason to own our
railroads. We are at peace and amity
with our friends on the north and our
neighbors on the south, hence, the
conclusion fails again.
Third Reason.
There is a third reason and it is
fundamental in this debate. Germany
is an old and developed country. Lit
tle money is expended in the building
of new lines but more in the mainten
ance of those already in operation,
while in America we have a young
and developing country. Large sums
PAGE THRU
h'H
Don't
of money are expended every year
for the building of new lines. Last
year in North Dakota there were more
miles of railroad built than there were
in all of Germany. Last year there
were more miles of railroad built in
three western states than there were
in all of Germany in the last four
years. The fallacy of comparing
Switzerland or Belgium with the
United States is too apparent to need
mention. The railroad system of Bel
gium or Switzerland compared with
the railroad system of the United
States is a mere merry-go-round.
What has been done by the negative
to sustain their contention? The first
speaker showed the impracticability
of government ownership in this
country from a political standpoint.
He showed that sectional jealousy
would prevent railroad building in
the district where it was most needed.
It would clog the wheels of railroad
progress, and owing to our form of
government would1 bring upon us a
carnival of crime and corruption. The
second speaker for the negative show
ed the impracticability of government
ownership for this country from an
industrial and economic standpoint.
He showed that the great guestdon^e
fore the American people was a ques
tion of the further development of our
national resources—a question of the
winning of the west for civilization.
It is a question of giving new homes
to the great number of people who
come to our borders from foreign
lands. He showed that thus far the
railroad had been the great factor
in the solution of that problem and
that ultimately It would be the fac
tor in its solution. And he showed
the utter folly of allowing the solution
of this problem to depend on govern
mental waste and official incompet
ence.
Would Mean Panic.
These are practical objections to
government ownership, but there are
others still more practical to the in
terests of American people. Here
the question of nationalization pre
sents Itself. How are the railroads
to be obtained? What is to be the
effect on industry, oh our credit dur
ing the time it takes to naturalize?
These are questions so practical and
with answers so obvious that the
American people seem to have laid
aside the question of even seriously
considering the proposition of nation
alizing our railroads. There is one
thing certain, however, and that Is
that the railroads cannot be confis
cated. There is a fundamental law
in our constitution which says "No
person shall be deprived of life, lib
erty or property without due process
of law." Hence condemnation pro
ceedings must be brought in the same
manner as the right of eminent do
main is enforced. Then we would
have a legal snarl. Then we would
begin the greatest legal battle of his
tory. Litigation involving in the total
upwards of 20 billions of dollars.
Think of the effect—panic!
A woman in Boston makes a busi
ness of taking inventories of houses
which are rented furnished. She comes
to the house and makes complete lists
In triplicate of every article, with a
description of its condition. When the
house Is given up she comes again
and checks over the household goods
appraises the loss or damage. She
has been so successful in this kind
of work that her service are much In
demand. "V:
JAS. A. DINNIE A. S. DINNIE
Domestic and
Portland Cement
DINNIE
BROS.
Gener'l Contractors
and Builders
iEN'L OFFICE: 314 INTERNATIONAL AVE
GRAND FORKS, N. DAK.
White and Brown Lime
Fire Brick and Clay
Hair, Sand, Plaster
Mortar Color
Manufacturers of Brick
We Manufacture and Lay Cement Walks
Yonr Business Solicited. Estimates Famished Upon Application