Fifty years in Wall Street
political bondage. Great achievements would be impossible under it.
Having shown the force and importance of individual initiative and
independence and the necessity for the spur of competition to bring
about the best results in human welfare and achievement, I now turn to
the rather concrete branch of the subject, known as Municipal Ownership.
Naturally, a proposition involving the placing of the ownership and
operation of our railroads, telegraph lines, plants for supplying light
and surface transportation, and conducting manufactories and business,
is one of such vital concern to all of us as to arouse our keenest
interest.
It is a part and parcel of the Socialistic plan of government, and, to a
very great extent, the arguments and illustrations presented in my
treatment of Socialism, generally, are of direct application to
Municipal Ownership.
I would term it the entering wedge of Socialism, adroitly resorted to by
its advocates. These Socialists well know the temper of the American
people toward their propaganda and wild project, and at the same time
they recognize the peculiar trait of character disclosed by Americans in
their curiosity and liking for anything new. Hence, they grossly
exaggerate the shortcomings and ills that exist in our body politic as
constituted; and, at the same time, extol, in an extravagant manner, the
superior conditions that would follow the taking of a small portion of
the Socialist’s infallible cure.
Municipal Ownership, as far as I have been able to observe, is also a
pure and simple political move to secure votes for aspirants for office,
and it is used for this purpose, regardless of any other question. It is
one of those planks that we often see inserted by parties in their
platform, to stand upon, to attract and gather in the votes. So
Socialism has its uses—for them.
I will admit that there are many economists who have presented a
friendly side to the Socialistic theories involved, and have prepared
able and extended articles in their endeavor to support or uphold such
theories (either in whole or in part); and it would be unjust to include
them in the same category with politicians and Socialists. However, if
that statesman was only half right who, in speaking of the tariff, said
that the question was a business one, and that a condition and not a
theory confronted us, then I feel that I am right in saying that “Public
Ownership” is a practical business question entirely—and not a
theoretical one.
There are so many logical and unanswerable reasons against this
Socialistic proposition that I feel it incumbent upon me to enlarge only
upon the practical ones, that I know more about, than upon those of the
theoretical group.
The experience of years has demonstrated that at the present time all
business enterprises require rare ability and experience, if not genius,
to ensure success.
Great financiers and successful men have devoted their lives to the
study and practice of their trade and business.
How is it possible, then, for municipalities to expect such
qualifications from officers whose term of office is for one or two
years, or during the tenure in office of a political party?
In the economy of commerce and its daily conduct and operation, there
are numerous divisions or departments, each one of which can only be
understood, appreciated, and conducted by men of special training and
fitness—who have given years of application thereto—and it is only by
their watchful care and expert management of each of these divisions
that a possible success is derived or business made to pay.
The smallest neglect, the merest indifference to details, or the
inattention that always accompanies abstraction by something else—taking
one’s mind off his business—upsets the whole system, and means waste
instead of saving economy, loss in place of profit, and inevitable
failure as the result. That this is true there is not the slightest
doubt, and would be readily confirmed by the leaders of every industry.
Animated by a desire to make the best possible showing, for use at the
next election, a false economy would be exercised under Municipal
Ownership, and no attention would be paid to obtaining useful new
inventions; and needed improvements and extensions would, likewise, be
ignored.
On the other hand, under private ownership, the best professional talent
is employed, at salaries unheard of in public office; and all the latest
inventions and improvements are at once utilized, giving the public
up-to-date service.
The active, modern business man, keenly alive to the requirements
necessary to ensure profit and success, perceives at a glance the evils
and mischievous results that would infect everything carried on under
this Socialistic plan. And as John Stuart Mill well says: “The mischief
begins when, instead of calling forth the activity of individuals, the
municipality substitutes its own activity for theirs.”
No serious attempt has ever been made to show the possibility of
securing and retaining, under some rule of municipal civil service, or
otherwise, the best men to assume the burden of management and
responsibility. As already explained, it would be practically impossible
to secure the best men, and no system of civil service has yet been
formulated, intended and able to provide for their retention.
In this connection, a fitting illustration is the case of Colonel
Waring, who instituted and maintained the best street-cleaning system we
have ever seen. His work was simply marvelous, and he made New York City
a model of cleanliness.
No one ever questioned his ability or integrity; yet, while at the very
zenith of his success, he was asked to resign, and obliged to leave the
city employment to make room for the choice of a new city
administration.
The defects and fallacies of Municipal Ownership which I have described
permeate all government ownership. Official reports and statistics
furnish convincing proofs and conclusive evidence of the failure of this
system as conducted abroad, and more signal loss and damage—in an
incalculable degree—would surely follow its adoption here. Just in
proportion as our interests and enterprises are the greatest and most
successful, as compared with other nations, would be the immensity of
our depreciation and collapse.
The United States is so different from other nations in its political
system that this fact alone precludes serious consideration of our
adoption of this imported Socialistic hobby and political heresy. It is
also a country whose every chapter of growth, progress, and prosperity
is a continuous narrative of individual efforts of its citizens. They,
naturally, prize individuality as they do independence itself, and have
every reason to believe that the present system of government is the
best for them, and that this land of Individualism is no place for
Socialism.
Imagine New York under Municipal Ownership of our public utilities! We
should then have fastened upon us a more colossal and more corrupt
Tammany than even existed in Tweed’s times. Graft would thrive beyond
all dreams of avarice. Let us take a lesson from England in this
respect, where public ownership has been tried on a larger scale and
under more favorable conditions than elsewhere. In a few instances the
running of street railways or city lighting plants has been successful,
but exceptions do not always prove the rule, and the conditions under
which these enterprises have been operated there must be taken into
consideration. English cities are comparatively free of political
corruption, and are, moreover, often served by men of high character,
wealth, and ability—men having a strong sense of civic duty, who deem it
an honor to give their community efficient service. Unfortunately, we
have not yet developed a class of this sort in the United States;
perhaps in due time we shall; but, until then, the experiment of
Municipal Ownership had better be indefinitely postponed. A weak point
of Municipal Ownership has usually been the financial end of the
business concerning which the public has been poorly informed. Many of
these enterprises in English cities have proved unprofitable. The
accounts have been juggled, and expenses that should be charged against
the plant were often transferred to city accounts. Not a few of the
English cities have so run into debt as to injure their credit and
impair the sale of their securities. Already, the British taxpayer is
beginning to complain about the costliness of these Municipal Ownership
schemes, and a decided reaction against them is setting in. The London
County Council has launched heavily into these ventures, many of which
have proved losing ventures, and some prominent experts have gone so far
as to predict that London will be bankrupt before long, unless present
tendencies are reversed. If Municipal Ownership has failed under the
highly favorable conditions which exist in England, how can it succeed
here? Again, the English telegraph system operated by the British
Government does not compare with the private systems of the United
States, either in efficiency or cheapness, and England with its public
telephones is very far behind the United States in efficiency and cost.
London does not begin to have the number of telephones per capita that
New York can claim. American railroads under private ownership perform
the best and cheapest service in the world.
If any further argument were needed to convince you that the United
States is no place for Socialism, its root or branches, it may be found
in the radical and quite amusing change of front shown by Major
Dalrymple, of Glasgow, upon the occasion of his visit to this country.
He came here at the request of Major Dunne, of Chicago, and the
Municipal Ownership League of New York, to aid the forces of Socialism
in their efforts in behalf of Municipal Ownership. He was the great
Apostle of that doctrine in Glasgow, and the very man, in their opinion,
to convert our people to that system.
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.”