the people than was secured through private operation; at the same time they promote general health and take steps to raise the standard of living among workmen. Not only have the street railways, the water, gas, electric light, and market departments of Glasgow been managed efficiently, but they have been handled in such a way as to bring in a considerable revenue to the city. The present condition of the city of Glasgow revenue shows it to be a going and paying concern providing the necessaries of community life to its citizens more efficiently and cheaply than these were formerly supplied by private enterprises. Beyond this, the city corporation through its municipal lodging and tenement houses is using surplus earnings in an attempt to eliminate slums.1

Many of the activities connected with municipal life other than public utilities are publically owned and controlled by the leading cities in Europe. For recreational purposes, cities provide promenades, gardens, and parks. Other enterprises engaged in by certain cities are forests, vineyards, bathing establishments, burial grounds, pawnshops, savings banks (providing particularly for small deposits from the poor), and employment offices for laborers and domestic servants.

In behalf of the public, cities own and operate theaters and opera houses, and contribute to the maintenance of libraries, picture galleries, and zoological gardens. The outlays in support of these activities are regarded as indirect methods of increasing the efficiency of the citizens.

Recently European cities have begun the purchase of land and houses in order to assist in providing satisfactory houses for the poor and to control the development and expansion of the city. This land is usually leased for long terms of years at a low yearly rental. Arrangements are made by which buildings may be erected on the land which the city owns, the city furnishing from 75 to 90 per cent of the money at a low rate of interest. Public slaughter 1 American Municipalities, July, 1913, "Report of Commissioner Putnam."

houses are regarded as a necessity to assure a supply of good meat. At the municipal market place most of the provisions of the household may be secured at moderate prices. Savings banks, pawn shops, and mortgage banks are conducted mostly for use of workingmen.1

Public undertakings such as the above in Europe and elsewhere are not always successful. Nor do they, as in some European cities, usually add to the municipal income. Furthermore, the successful management of such enterprises requires a staff of experts specially trained for their work and permanence of tenure as long as efficient service is rendered. The separation of politics and administration which prevails throughout Europe renders it possible to secure and retain experts to manage the public utilities. Where politics and administration are not separated and where offices are filled on a partisan basis for short terms, public ownership is likely to lead to wasteful expenditures and correspondingly poor service. It is a question, then, whether political conditions in the United States are such as to encourage the extension of public ownership. But an analysis of the progress of European cities may aid American citizens in determining the causes for the failure of municipal administration and some remedies which are readily applicable.

Public Ownership of Railroads in Foreign Countries.—The regulation of railroads by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the war-time trial of almost complete public control and regulation, and the Esch-Cummins Act have only tended to accentuate the consideration of the problem of ultimate public ownership of railway systems in the United States. There are in the United States more than 250,000 miles of railways. This mileage is six times greater than that of any other country and comprises almost twofifths of the entire railway mileage of the world. In view of this great mileage and the immensity of the interests

1 See Frederic C. Howe, European Cities at Work (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913).

involved, the problem of public ownership is of the greatest significance. It is of special interest in the consideration of this problem to note that more than fifty nations own and operate all railway lines or the larger part thereof. The table given below, based on the best available data, indicates the present status of railway ownership.

MILEAGE OF STATE AND PRIVATE RAILWAYS FOR 1913 BY COUNTRIES 1

1 Archiv für Eisenbahnwesen, 1913, pp. 520-522; reprinted in Carl D. Thompson, "Public Ownership of Railways," Bulletin No. 12 of Public Ownership League of America, pp. 42–44. * Including Guatemala, Honduras, Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.

1 This table, although the best available, has some inaccuracies. The public owned railways of the United States in Panama and Alaska are not included, and the purchase of the Grand Trunk Pacific system by Canada increases the government railways of that country by more than 15,000 miles.

It will thus be seen that most of the leading countries of the world own and operate their railway systems. England and the United States are the chief exceptions.

The friends of public ownership contend that through public ownership the following improvements have resulted: The conditions of labor have been meliorated; rates have been reduced; the service has been improved; travel and

transportation are safer, with less loss of human lives; the railroads are better financed; great economies have been introduced; and railroads have been taken out of politics.1

But the testimony on these counts is far from conclusive. Many of those favoring private ownership see in the publicowned railways a continuous round of failures. And the supporters of private ownership have been continuously presenting their case to the public by means of a systematically organized campaign to "educate the people." It is a noteworthy fact that two of the best railway systems and a large part of the world's mileage are privately owned and managed. Furthermore a few important countries such as Germany and France nationalized the railways as a measure of public defense and not because private ownership was regarded a failure. It is very difficult indeed to secure a fair and unbiased presentation of the cause of public ownership. Many of those who undertake to inform the public are biased on one side or the other. And then the conditions vary so much in the separate countries that comparisons often have relatively little weight. For the citizen the problem is one on which reliable information should be demanded in order that an intelligent and fairminded judgment may be formed. In this as in numerous other government problems the matters involved are of such a complex character that specialists alone can form really intelligent judgments.

Objections to Public Ownership.3-Numerous objections have been advanced by the opponents of the policy of government ownership of public utilities. It is claimed that such a policy is contrary to the fundamental principles of our system of government, and that our political institutions, as they now exist, are not adapted to the manage

1 Cf. Carl D. Thompson, "Public Ownership of Railways," Bulletin No. 12, Public Ownership League of America, pp. 8 ff.

2

Cf. Yves Guyot, Where and Why Public Ownership Has Failed (The Macmillan Company, 1914).

3 Cf. pamphlet by The Merchants' Association of New York, "Opposing Government Ownership and Operation of Public Utilities," November, 1916.