In the years that followed, however, the Interstate Commerce Act checked railroad abuses very little. The machinery of the Act was so defective as to render difficult the successful prosecution of offenders. Railroad interests exerted an evil influence upon government officials who were attempting to enforce the Act. The administration of the law was also markedly impeded by the fact that the courts tended to interpret the Act of 1887 in such a way as to limit the powers of the Commission.
To a considerable extent discriminations and unnecessarily high rates continued until after the opening of the twentieth century. Then in 1903 the Elkins Act revived some of the waning powers of the Commission. Three years later (1906) the Hepburn Law increased the membership of the Commission, improved its machinery, and extended and reinforced its control over rates. In 1910 the Mann-Elkins Act strengthened the position of the Commission in several particulars.
In spite of this additional legislation, however, the rather sorry record of railroad regulation up to the time of the World War repeatedly raised the question of national ownership of railroads.
348. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF NATIONAL OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS.—The arguments in favor of national ownership of railroads are similar to those advanced in behalf of the municipal ownership of local utilities.
The failure of regulation, coupled with the social importance of the railroads, is said to render ownership imperative. Government ownership of railroads is said to have succeeded in several of the countries of Europe, notably in Prussia.
It is believed by many that government ownership would attract a high grade of public official. It is also thought that with the change to public ownership the corruption of state legislatures by railroads would cease. Since the roads would be taken out of private hands and administered as a unit by the Federal government, discriminations and other unfair practices would cease.
It is also held that under public ownership service rather than profits would become the ideal. Since profits would no longer be necessary, lower rates could be offered. Government ownership would allow the elimination of duplicating lines in competitive areas, and would permit the extension of new lines into areas not immediately profitable. Thus railroads now operated solely for private gain would become instruments of social as well as industrial progress.
349. ARGUMENTS AGAINST NATIONAL OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS.—Opponents of national ownership maintain that the experience of Prussia and other European countries is no guide to railroad management in this country. Differences in political organization between this and European countries, for example, render unreliable the results of public ownership in Prussia and other parts of Europe.
Many opponents of government ownership contend that the elimination of private control would increase, rather than decrease, political corruption. Various political interests, they say, would bring pressure to bear in favor of low rates for their particular sections of the country.
It is often maintained that the substitution of public for private ownership would discourage personal initiative because public officials would take little genuine interest in the railroads. It is said that government administration of railroads would be marked by waste and inefficiency. This would necessitate higher rates instead of permitting rates to be reduced. The large initial cost of acquiring the roads is urged against public ownership, as is the gigantic task of administering so vast an industry.