Upon his arrival here, he was greeted with great éclat by the League of this city, and gave out an interview in which he spoke as follows:
“I see no reason why any city in this country should not be able to own its street railways, and to run them with as much success as we have achieved at Glasgow. I admit that the proposition is a much larger one than the one we had to tackle, but at the bottom it is the same.”
This was before he knew our country and its institutions. After an extended stay here, he prepared for his homeward journey, but before sailing, he was again interviewed, and to the surprise and discomfiture of the Socialists, he retracted all that he had said before in favor of Municipal Ownership, in the following language:
“To put street railways, gasworks, telephone companies, etc., under Municipal Ownership would be to create a political machine in every large city that would be simply impregnable. These political machines are already strong enough, with their control of policemen, firemen, and other office holders.
“If, in addition to this, they could control the thousands of men employed in the great public utility corporations, the political machines would have a power that could not be overthrown. I came to this country a believer in public ownership. What I have seen here, and I have studied the situation carefully, makes me realize that private ownership, under proper conditions, is far better for the citizens of American cities.”
From stereograph. Copyright, 1906, by Underwood & Underwood, N. Y.
JOHN W. GATES.
The New York papers aptly called this “The conversion of the Scot”; and this blunt and honest admission coming from their own authority, that Municipal Ownership in this country was wholly impracticable, stunned and paralyzed its agitators, and caused many of its adherents to leave the ranks of Socialism.
Mr. James Bryce, the worthy newly appointed English Ambassador to this country, pointed out some twenty years ago, in his “American Commonwealth,” how the then future of the United States sometimes presented itself to the mind as a struggle between two forces—the one beneficent, the other malign; the one striving to speed the nation to a port of safety before the storm arrives, the other to retard its progress, so that the tempest may be upon it before the port is reached. He further expressed concern as to whether the progress then discernible toward a wiser public opinion and a higher standard of public life would succeed in bringing the mass of the people up to a high level, or whether the masses would yield to the temptation to abuse their power and seek violent and vain and useless remedies—like Socialism—for the evils which would affect us.
This able statesman predicted that the question would be decided early in the present century, and would be evidenced by the condition of progress and prosperity brought about by the people in the meantime.