WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN.

Mr. Bryan on Government Ownership of Railroads.

[At Madison Square Garden, New York, Aug. 30, 1906.]

The railroad question is also interwoven with the trust question. Nearly all the private monopolies have received rebates or have secured other advantages over competitors. Absolute equality of treatment at the hands of the railroads would go far toward crippling the trusts, and I rejoice that the President has had the courage to press this question upon Congress. While the law, as it was finally distorted by the Senate, is not all that could be wished, it deserves a fair trial. Rate regulation was absolutely necessary, and it furnishes some relief from the unbearable conditions which previously existed; but we must not forget that the vesting of this enormous power in the hands of a commission appointed by the President introduces a new danger. If an appointive board has the power to fix rates and can by the exercise of that power increase or decrease by hundreds of millions of dollars the annual revenues of the railroads, will not the railroads feel that they have a large pecuniary interest in the election of a President friendly to the railroads? Experience has demonstrated that municipal corruption is largely traceable to the fact that franchise corporations desire to control the city council and thus increase their dividends. If railroad managers adopt the same policy the sentiment in favor of the ownership of the railroads by the Government is likely to increase as rapidly throughout the country as the sentiment in favor of municipal ownership has increased in the cities.

I have already reached the conclusion that railroads partake so much of the nature of a monopoly that they must ultimately become public property and be managed by public officials in the interest of the whole community, in accordance with the well defined theory that public ownership is necessary where competition is impossible.

I do not know whether a majority of the members of the party to which I have the honor to belong believe in the government ownership of railroads, but my theory is that no man can call a mass convention to decide what he himself shall think. I have reached the conclusion that there will be no permanent relief on the railroad question from discrimination between individuals and between places, and from extortionate rates, until the railroads are the property of the Government and operated by the Government in the interests of the people.

And I believe I believe that there is a growing belief in all parties that this solution, be it far or near, is the ultimate solution. But, my friends, to me the dangerous centralization is a danger that cannot be brushed aside. The greatest danger of a republic is the consolidation of all power at the capital remote from the people, and because I believe that the ownership of all the railroads by the Federal Government would so centralize power as to virtually obliterate State lines, instead of favoring the Federal ownership of all railroads, I favor the Federal ownership of trunk lines only, and the State ownership of all the rest of the railroads.

Some have said that it would be impracticable to allow the local lines to be owned by the several States. I did not believe the argument weighty before I went abroad, and my observations in other lands have convinced me that State ownership of local lines is entirely feasible. In Germany almost all the railroads are owned not by the Empire, but by the several States-not even the trunk lines are owned by the Federal Government, and yet they have no difficulty about interstate traffic.

I have simply mentioned this because you cannot well discuss the trust question without discussing the railroad question, and while I regard the railroad question as it now presents itself, as a part of the trust question, and not a paramount issue, I could not in frankness withhold my views on this subject and therefore, I have said what I said.

[At Louisville, Ky., September 12, 1906.]

In my speech at the New York reception I made some remarks concerning the government ownership of railways, and thought I had expressed myself so clearly that my po sition could not be misconstrued, even by those who desired to misconstrue it. The New York speech was prepared in advance. It was not only written, but it was carefully revised. It stated exactly what it wanted to state, and I have nothing to withdraw or modify in the statements therein made. What I say to-night is rather in the nature of an elaboration of the ideas therein presented.

After quoting from the Democratic platform of 1900 that "a private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable," and after laying it down as a principle that public ownership should begin where competition ends and that the people should have the benefit of any monopoly that might be found necessary, I stated that I had reached the conclusion "that railroads partake so much of the nature of a monopoly that they must ultimately become public property and be managed by public officials in the interest of the whole community."

mem

I do not know that the country is ready for this legislation. I do not know that the majority of my own party favors it, but I believe an increased number of the bers of all parties see in public ownership a sure remedy for discrimination between persons and places and for the extortionate rates for the carrying of freight and passengers.

I then proceeded to outline a system of public ownership whereby the advantages of public ownership might be secured to the people without the dangers of centralization. This system contemplates Federal ownership of the trunk lines only, and the ownership of local lines by the several States.

I further expressed it as my opinion that the railroads themselves were responsible for the growth of the sentiment in favor of public ownership and said that, while I believed the rate bill recently enacted should be given a fair trial, we might expect to see the railroads still more active in politics unless our experience with them differed from the experience we had had with franchise-holding corporations.

This statement of my views has been assailed by some as an attempt to force these views upon the Democratic party and by some as an announcement of an intention to insist upon the incorporation of these views in the next Democratic national platform.

Let me answer these two charges. I have tried to make it clear that I expressed my own opinion and I have never sought to compel the acceptance of my opinion by anyone else. Reserving the right to do my thinking, I respect the right of every one else to do his thinking.

If you ask me whether the question of government ownership will be an issue in the campaign of 1908, I answer I do not know. If you ask me whether it ought to be in the platform, I reply, I cannot tell until I know what the Democratic voters think upon the subject. If the Democrats believe the next platform should contain a plank in favor of government ownership, then that plank ought to be included. If the Democrats think it ought not to contain such a plank, then such a plank ought not to be included.

It rests with the party to make the platform and individuals can only advise. I have spoken for myself and for myself only, and I did not know how the suggestion would be received. I am now prepared to confess to you that it has been received more favorably than I expected.

There is this, however, I do expect, namely, that these Democrats who oppose public ownership will accompany their

declaration against it with the assertion that they will favor government ownership whenever they are convinced the counry must choose between government ownership of the roads and railroad ownership of the government,

[At East Radford, Va., September 15, 1906.]

Two years ago I had reached the conclusion that the government ownership of railroads was the only solution of the question. I did not say it when I was the leader of the party in either campaign; in fact, I had not reached the conclusion until a few years ago. When I was relieved of leadership at St. Louis, and could speak as a private individual, I stated my conclusions. My convictions have grown since, and in New York I stated it as my opinion that that was the ultimate solution. I said I did not know whether the country was ready for it, or whether a majority of the Democrats favored it.

Now, I want to say that my position has been misstated, and in some places misconstrued. I have been accused of favoring a thing that would lead to centralization. Let me remind you that this plan not only does not lead to centralization, but it is the first suggestion made in many years that looks toward the strengthening of the State and making a Dulwark against centralization. People have been discussing public ownership with the idea that the Federal Government would own the railroads, and it seemed to me that that was fraught with danger, because I believe in the Democratic doctrine of local self-government, and that our opinion is strongest when the independence of the State and the conduct of its wn affairs is recognized and respected.

I believe in our constitutional doctrine that local things are for the States, and national affairs for the Federal Governinent, and therefore, instead of advocating a Federal ownership that would centralize all this power at Washington, I advocate a dual plan, whereby only the trunk lines would be under the control of the Federal Government and all the local lines under the control of the State government.

If anybody denies that it is practicable, I cannot but tell them that in the Empire of Germany almost all the railroads are owned by the separate states, and that today the Emre wants to get the railroads in order to strengthen the Federal Government, but the States refuse to surrender them, because they are the influential strength of the states of the Empire of Germany. So, my friends, instead of being for centrálization, this is the plan that gives to the State the power to strengthen itself and to attend to its own affairs.

I am not here to bring you to my conclusions on the railroad question. So far as I am concerned, it does not matter to me whether or not every man in the United States agrees with me or not. I believe that every man ought to have his own beliefs and his own convictions, and when he has convictions on the subject of public matters, I believe that he ought to give them to the people and take the responsibility for them.

[In letter to Henry M. Whitney, of Boston, March 25, 1907.]

I am in favor of both National and State regulations, but I also believe that public ownership is the ultimate solution of the railroad question. In my discussions on this subject I have pointed out that because of the danger of centralization in ownership by the Federal Government of all the lines I prefer a system in which the Federal Government will be confined to the necessary trunk lines and the ownership of the rest of the lines be left to the States. This, however, is not an immediate question; at least. I am not sure that the people are ready to consider the question of public ownership, and until they are ready to consider that question the interest is centered in regulation.

[In letter to Wall Street Journal, April 6, 1907, published April 10, 1907.] For some fourteen years after my entrance into National polities I hoped for effective railroad legislation and was

brought reluctantly to the belief that government ownership furnished the only satisfactory remedy for the discrimination, rebates, and extortions practiced by the railroads and for the corruption which they have brought into politics.

My first public expression on this subject was after the National convention in 1904. Two reasons led me to discuss the subject at that time. First, the triumph of the reactionary element at St. Louis discouraged the more radical meinbers of our party. Feeling sure, from contact with the rank and file of our organization, that the ascendency of the socalled conservative leaders would be temporary, I appealed to the radical Democrats to remain with the party, secure control of the organization, and make the party an effective instrument in securing needed reforms.

*

To encourage these progressive Democrats to remain with the party I announced the conclusion which I had reached in regard to the final necessity for government ownership. * * At this time a majority of the people still seem to have faith in the regulation, and the first thing necessary is to ascertain the present value of the railroads and then prevent any more watering of stock. I shall assist as far as I am able to test regulation under as favorable conditions as can be created, but having reached the conclusion that, in the end, regulation will be found ineffective, I have stated my conclusions.

As I was slow in reaching this conclusion myself I can be patient with those who honestly fear government ownership. In the meantime, I am anxious that those who become convinced of the necessity of government ownership shall consider the plan which reduces centralization to a minimum and adds to the influence and vigor of the state.

Bryan on Government Ownership of Railroads.

[New York World, February, 1908; printed in daily Congressional Record, May 29, 1908.]

Most people believe, Mr. Bryan, that your first proclamation of government ownership of railways was made at New York City August 30, 1906, on your return from Europe. Such is not the case. The plan of reorganization to "rid the Democratic party of plutocracy," which you promised on the adjournment of the Kansas City convention in 1904, was given to a waiting world on July 21, 1904. You stated the case of government ownership of railroads as follows:

an

"I have heretofore refused to take a position on the question of government ownership of railroads, first, because I had not until recently studied the subject; and, secondly, because the question had not been reached. Recent events have convinced me that the time is now ripe for the presentation of this question. Consolidation after consolidation has taken place until a few men now control the railroad traffic of the country and defy both the legislative and executive power of the nation. I invite the Democrats, therefore, to consider a plan for the government ownership and operation of the railroads. The plan usually suggested is for the purchase of those roads by the Federal Government. This plan, it seems to me, is more objectionable than a plan which involves the ownership and operation of these roads by the several States. To put the railroads in the hands of the Federal Government would mean enormous centralization of power. It would give to the Federal Government a largely increased influence over the citizen and the citizen's affairs, and such centralization is not at all necessary. The several States can own and operate the railroads within their borders just as effectively as it can be done by the Federal Government, and if it is done by the States the objection based upon the fear of centralization is entirely answered. A board composed of representatives from the various States could deal with interstate traffic just as freight and passenger boards now deal with the joint traffic of the various lines. If the Federal Government had the railroads to build there would be constant rivalry between different sections to secure a fair share of the new building and improvement, but where this is left to the State the people in each State can decide what railroads they desire to build or to buy."

Later, in April, 1905, at a dinner given by the Iroquois Club, of Chicago, on the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, the greatest of American individualists, you repeated and elaborated this highly ornamental scheine of triple State socialism.

August 29, 1906, you returned to New York in triumph from a trip around the world, to be greeted by Democrats from nearly every State in the Union as their candidate for President.

You undertook in your speech at Madison Square Garden, August 30, to sound the keynote of a government ownership campaign:

"I have already reached the conclusion that railroads partake so much of the nature of a monopoly that they must ultimately become public property and be managed by public officials in the interest of the whole community, in accordance with the well-defined theory that public ownership is necessary where competition is impossible. I do not know whether a majority of the members of the party to which I have the honor to belong believe in the Government ownership of railroads, but my theory is that no man can tell

a mass convention to decide what he himself shall think. I have reached the conclusion that there will be no permanent relief on the railroad question from discrimination between individuals and between places and from extortionate rates until the railroads are the property of the Government and operated by the Government in the interest of the people. And I believe that there is a growing belief in all parties that this solution, be it far or near, is the ultimate solution. But to me, my friends, the danger of centralization is a danger than can not be brushed aside. The greatest danger of a republic is the centralization of power at the capital remote from the people, and because I believe that the ownership of all the railroads by the Federal Government would so centralize power, as virtually to obliterate State lines, instead of favoring the Federal ownership of all railroads, I favor the federal ownership of trunk lines only and the state ownership of all the rest of the railroads."

Impressed by vehement protests against the marriage of Democracy to State socialism, you began at Louisville, September 12, 1906, your masterful retreat:

"I advocate strict regulation and shall rejoice if experience proves that that regulation can be made effective. * Yet I would not be honest with you if I did not frankly admit that observation has convinced me that government ownership can be undertaken on the plan indicated with less danger to the country than is involved in private ownership as we have had it or as we are likely to have it. * * You say that all these abuses can be corrected without interference with private ownership. I shall be glad if experience proves that they can be, but I no longer hope for it."

The retreat ended at Lincoln, July 19, 1907, when you asked for an armistice in these words:

"Government ownership is not an immediate issue. While many Democrats believe"-and Mr. Bryan is one of the number-"that public ownership offers the ultimate solution of the problem, still those who believe that the public will finally in self-defense be driven to ownership recognize that regulation must be tried under the most favorable circumstances before the masses will be ready to try a more radical remedy."

Do you think that the Democratic party can convince voters that it honestly favors regulation of railroads if it nominates a candidate who believes in government ownership and who has proclaimed in advance his belief that regulation will prove a failure? Do you think that the American people could safely trust you to carry out a policy of regulation with which you have no sympathy and for whose effectiveness to remedy abuses you have no hope?

The United States Courts and the Trusts-Let Us See, Mr. Bryan.

[Printed in New York World, February, 1908; printed in daily Congressional Record, May 29, 1908.]

Let us see, Mr. Bryan, whether your campaign against the Federal courts had a more rational inspiration than your campaign for a 50-cent dollar.

You gave your followers to understand that the United States courts were prejudiced in behalf of the rich and powerful-were, in fact, controlled by trusts and corporations and were deaf to the welfare of the people as a whole. Not only have you appealed to mob passion against Federal courts of justice and threatened to pack the Supreme Court, but you have persistently advocated short terms and popular elections for United States judges in order to make them creatures of popular clamor. We have, therefore, thought proper to indicate here as briefly as possible important cases arising since 1896 in which proceedings have been begun or judgment has been entered against the very interests which you charged were privileged.

The list is instructive in many ways, but in none is it more so than in its complete refutation of the slanders of socialistic demagogism.

In 1898 the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the circuit court, southern district of New York, and the circuit court of appeals, and enjoined the Joint Traffic Association from violating the antitrust law. By the action of the court it was dissolved.

In 1899 the Supreme Court sustained the circuit court of appeals, sixth circuit, in the matter of an injunction restraining the operations of the cast-iron pipe trust, known as the Addystone Pipe case.

In 1900 the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the antitrust law of Texas, one of the most drastic yet adopted.

In 1904 the Supreme Court, having the cases against the beef trust before it, decided: (1) Traffic in live stock transported from State to State is interstate commerce, and persons engaged in buying and selling such live stock are engaged in interstate commerce; (2) the combination between dealers to suppress all competition in the purchase of live stock is an unlawful restraint of trade; (3) the combination between dealers to fix and maintain a uniform price in the sale of meat throughout the country is an unlawful restraint of trade; (4) the combination of dealers to obtain preferential railroad rates is an unlawful restraint of trade, and (5) all combinations suppressing competition fall under the prohibition of the Sherman antitrust act.

In 1904 the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the circuit court, Minnesota, enjoining the Northern Securities Company from purchasing, acquiring, receiving, holding, voting, or in any manner acting as the owner of any of the shares of stock of the Northern Pacific and Great Northern Railway Companies, and restraining the Northern Securities Company from exercising any control over the corporate acts of said companies.

In 1905 the Supreme Court affirmed a decree of the circuit court, northern Illinois, enjoining various great packers in Chicago, commonly known as the "beef trust," from carrying out an unlawful conspiracy between themselves and railway companies to suppress competition.

In 1906 the Supreme Court affirmed various judgments of United