"The objections to national ownership are many, that most frequently advanced, and having the most force, being the possibility that, by reason of its control of a vastly increased number of civil servants, the party in possession of the Federal administration at the time such ownership was assumed would be able to perpetuate its power indefinitely.... This objection would seem to be well taken, and indicates serious and far-reaching results unless some way can be devised to neutralize the political power of such a vast addition to the official army.... In the military service we have a body of men that exerts little or no political power, as the moment a citizen enters the army he divests himself of political functions; and it is not hazardous to say that 700,000 capable and efficient men can be found who, for the sake of employment, to be continued so long as they are capable and well behaved, will forego the right to take part in political affairs. If a sufficient number of such men can be found, this objection would, by proper legislation, be divested of all its force....
"2. That there would be constant political pressure to make places for the strikers of the party in power, thus adding a vast number of useless men to the force, and rendering it progressively more difficult to effect a change in the political complexion of the administration.
"That this objection has much less force than is claimed is clear from the conduct of the postal department, which is unquestionably a political adjunct of the administration; yet but few useless men are employed, while its conduct of the mail service is a model of efficiency after which the corporate-managed railways might well pattern. Moreover, if the railways are put under non-partisan control, this objection will lose nearly, if not quite, all its force.
"3. That the service would be less efficient and cost more than with continued corporate ownership. This appears to be bare assertion, as from the very nature of the case there can be no data outside those furnished by the government-owned railways of the British colonies, and such data negative these assertions; and the advocates of national ownership are justified in asserting that such ownership would materially lessen the cost, as any expert can readily point out many ways in which the enormous costs of corporate management would be lessened. With those familiar with present methods, and not interested in their perpetuation, this objection has no force whatever.
"4. That with constant political pressure unnecessary lines would be built for political ends. This is also bare assertion, although it is not impossible that such results would follow; yet such has not been the case in the British colonies where the governments have had control of construction....
"5. That, with the amount of red tape that will be in use, it will be impossible to secure the building of needed lines. While such objection is inconsistent with the fourth, it may have some force, but as the greater part of the country is already provided with all the railways that will be needed for a generation, it is not a very serious objection even if it is as difficult as asserted to procure the building of the new lines. It is not probable, however, that the Government would refuse to build any line that would clearly subserve public, convenience, the conduct of the postal service negativing such a supposition....
"6. That lines built by the Government would cost much more than if built by corporations. Possibly this would be true, but they would be much better built and cost far less for maintenance and betterments, and would represent no more than actual cost; and such lines as the Kansas Midland, costing but $10,200 per mile, would not, as now, be capitalized at $53,024 per mile, nor would the president of the Union Pacific (as does Sidney Dillon, in the North American Review for April) say that "a citizen, simply as a citizen, commits an impertinence when he questions the right of a corporation to capitalize its properties at any sum whatever," as then there would be no Sidney Dillons who would be presidents of corporations, pretending to own railways built wholly from Government moneys and lands, and who have never invested a dollar in the construction of a property which they have now capitalized at the modest sum of $106,000 per mile....
"7. That they are incapable of as progressive improvement as are corporate-owned ones, and will not keep pace with the progress of the nation in other respects; and in his Forum article Mr. Acworth lays great stress upon this phase of the question and argues that as a result the service would be far less satisfactory.
"There may be force in this objection, but the evidence points to an opposite conclusion. When the nation owns the railways trains will run into union depots, the equipment will become uniform and of the best character, and so sufficient that the traffic in no part of the country would have to wait while the worthless locomotives of some bankrupt corporation were being patched up, nor would there be the present difficulties in obtaining freight cars growing out of the poverty of corporations which have been plundered by the manipulators, and improvements would not be hindered by the diverse ideas of the managers of various lines in relation to the adoption of devices intended to render life more secure or to add to the public convenience.... Existing evidence all negatives Mr. Acworth's postulate that "state railway systems are incapable of vigorous life."
"8. An objection to national ownership which the writer has not seen advanced is that States, counties, cities, townships and school districts would lose some $27,000,000 of revenue derived from taxes upon railways. While this would be a serious loss to some communities, there would be compensating advantages for the public, as the cost of transportation could be lessened in like measure.