Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

without corresponding cost and which supplies a service available only in connection with its plant. Private monopoly is intolerable in a free country. Such an enterprise must be regulated by the State or must be owned by the State. The object of regulation is to secure a safe, efficient and inexpensive service for the public." The professor concludes that regulation has not brought greater safety and that "private enterprise when it becomes monopolistic ceases to be enterprising, and cannot be made so by regulation,' while "in the matter of expense our judgment must be most severe."

(b.) Consolidation of the railroads of the United States has developed to an alarming extent since 1900. The roads being capitalized at something over $13,000,000,000, one-seventh of the total wealth of the nation is in the hands of six great groups, who operate nine-tenths of the total mileage of the United States. The coöperative spirit is the cloak under which much of this centralization of ownership has been carried on. For instance, the Pennsylvania road owns and operates 150 dependent roads, the New York Central something over 100 such roads. In few instances have the original names been changed. Among the six great groups such "community of interest" is realized that in the matter of hostility to government regulation they are already one. Where combination is possible and profitable, competition is impossible. Issue must be taken with this centralized and consolidated monopoly. Says Governor Cummins of Iowa, in his testimony before the Senate Committee, "Whenever the railroads are consolidated in one great company, I think that great company will be the United States." Commenting upon this tendency, a distinguished economist recently said: "I cannot think of any other industrial development that would be so great a menace either to our political integrity or our industrial welfare."

(c.) By far the greatest danger of railroads in private hands, a danger that

will necessitate increased regulation as it becomes more and more felt,-is the effect upon the general competitive field. Railroad rates, playing as they do such an important part in the business world, private carriers possess the power of life or death, not only over single competitors but over entire competing communities. The possibility of the misuse of this power coupled with the uncertain business conditions that it creates, make it questionable whether it should be lodged in private hands. The power to restrict competition or to turn it into other channels can reside only in the National Government. principle is recognized in our protective policy. Inequality of railroad rates produces economically the same effect as a protective tariff and, in fact, in Germany, is used as a commercial barrier.

This

III. The lawyer, in view of fundamental legal difficulties, forecasts the result as follows:

(a.) Under our dual form of government, Congress may legislate only over interstate commerce and legislatures only over state commerce. Power so divided makes it impossible to insure a system of uniform regulation. "The situation to be anticipated then, is that railroads, private properties and representing private investments aggregating billions of dollars, will find themselves controlled in the vital matter of their charges by two public boards-one representative of local interests and the other of national interests, and both antagonistic to the interests of the private owners concerned. The two boards will aim at the lowest possible rates, each in behalf of the particular business under its charge, and will therefore be in constant rivalry with each other in the endeavor to extort from the carrier the best service at the smallest cost. Under these conditions anything like just, skilful, reasonable or stable ratemaking becomes impossible. A situation is created intolerable alike to the carriers and the public, and the sure outcome unless the whole scheme of gov

ernment rate-making is abandoned-is simply relatively reasonable, but withgovernment-ownership."*

The same opinion was expressed by Senator Morgan of Alabama in his speech before the Senate, January 9, 1906.

are.

(b.) The law of the land declares that railroad rates shall be reasonable alike to the investor and to the shipper. This double claim for justice makes the distinction between what is reasonable and what is not reasonable an exceeding fine one. Reasonableness of rates must be determined accurately, quickly and absolutely. If this is impossible, regulation must fail. Neither cost of service nor value of service can determine it, for it is impossible to ascertain what these Nor can comparison be used as a basis. The words "just and reasonable" do not imply comparison, for decisions of the courts hold that rates must not only be comparatively reasonable but reasonable in themselves. Again the commissions are not certain what constitutes a reasonable rate. The Interstate Commerce Commission in its 1903 report, page 54, admits this: "It is difficult to say what constitutes a reasonable rate although the Supreme Court has given certain rules by which to test that reasonableness. Although the commission has endeavored to apply those rules, yet whenever it has questioned railroad officials as to whether or not they were governed by them in making rates, they have invariably answered in the negative and declared that to do so would be impractical. The carriers do not apparently possess such data and there is at present no other source from which to obtain such data." Then to what purpose has additional power been bestowed upon the commission. Justice Brewer says: "No more difficult problem can be presented than this." (64 Federal Reporter, 165.) Senator La Follette of Wisconsin said in his speech before the Senate: "When you clothe a commission merely with the power to ascertain whether rates are

*Richard Olney, in North American Review, November, 1905.

hold from it all authority and all means of determining whether those rates are just and reasonable, you cannot expect that legislation to settle the matter."

IV. The railroad man holds a practical business view:

(a.) "The industries of the country as they exist to-day, prosperous and growing as they are, rely upon the present relation of rates, based upon commercial considerations, competitive and otherwise. All this will be changed. The commission will undo the results which the competition of waterways and railways and the opening of new markets have created. It will inaugurate its own system of equality and uniformity, giving to each city and to each industry the rates to which they think it is naturally entitled by reason of its geographical position.

...

From this condition there will be, in a republic with universal suffrage, but

one

way out-government-ownership; there can be no backward step."†

(b.) A prominent railroad official recently said: "If the railway companies are to be interfered with in making the rates for their services, without government assuming any responsibility for the obligations and expenditures of the railway companies, such confusion and trouble will naturally follow as to make it right and proper for the government to take over the railways, absolutely. No business of any kind can be successfully carried on, if the authority to fix prices and the responsibility for debts and expenses, are not lodged in the samė hands. This is a fundamental law, ascertained by efforts of government in past times to regulate prices of commodities. No government with pretensions to civilization and intelligence, attempts now to do such a thing." The same idea was expressed by William Sproule before the Commonwealth Club of California on September 13, 1905.

†W. W. Baldwin, address before Denver Philo. sophical Society, November 23, 1905.

(c.) "The effect of such regulation undoubtedly would be the curtailment of future railroad constructions and improvements, not only by reason of the impairment of railroad credit, but also from the unwillingness of investors to own or to enlarge property, the revenues of which would be practically under governmental or political control and the expenses still be subject to the uncertainties of industrial conditions."*

These, then, are briefly the lines of argument which have led the farsighted statesman, the learned economist, the skilful lawyer and the practical railroad

man, each from his separate view-point and each following his distinct trend of thought to come to the conclusion that regulation is a step to government-ownership. From the vehemence with which it was scoffed at by the less thoughtful, and the persistency with which it crept into the brief of argument of the more conservative, it may be gathered that, even if concealed, the question, “Is railroad rate-regulation a step to government-ownership?" was undoudedly an issue in the much-debated railroad question. EDWIN F. GRUHL, EDGAR E. ROBINSON.

Madison, Wis.

No

CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE.

BY J. ROMIEUX.

COUNTRY was ever converted to Catholicism in so short a time as France. Historians assign as the reason for that quick change some likeness between Druidism and the new religion. Whatever may be the cause of it, we must recognize that at the time of Clovis almost all Gauls were followers of Christ. Invaders sought the support of the Clergy, and the Franks with Clovis were called to the West by priests. To them also is due the conversion of this chief and his elevation to kinship with the Gauls. Charlemagne increased the Church power and endowed the Pope with the Roman States. His successors acted in the same spirit and the Crusades also served to give prominence to the Clergy.

With such a start, it is not surprising that the Church at the time of the French Revolution was so rich and so powerful. Church properties escaped taxation and this was one of the principal causes of the *President Samuel Spencer in his address before the Traffic Club of Pittsburg, April 7, 1905.

downfall of royalty and the rise of democracy.

The clerical orders did not want to be taxed, they wished to satisfy the nation by voluntary gifts. At least this was the idea of the aristocratic part of the order. When the States General split, many clergymen went with the Tiers Etat and formed at the end of the Revolution what has been called the "Constitutional Clergy.”

When Napoleon, then First Consul, reorganized the Catholic Church, he was put to great trouble to get appointments for these sworn priests.

The Concordat between the Pope and France was a patched-up treaty and was followed by the "Articles Organiques."

To understand the recent dispute between France and Rome we must see what was done at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

The First Consul believed in religion; his early education had been Catholic and, although not a great churchgoer himself,

as a ruler he favored some form of ortho

dox worship. His associates and friends did all they could to dissuade him from reëstablishing the old Church and suggested that he should form a new religion. Bonaparte disregarded their advice and demonstrated to them the foolishness of their plan; he remembered what a failure had been the cult of Reason under the Revolution.

At this time there were two Churches in France: one composed of sworn priests, the other of the so-called orthodox. The former were in possession of churches and other properties, the latter only were trusted by the faithful and attended to their spiritual wants. These divisions were alarming and caused distrust everywhere.

Bonaparte was acquainted personally with Pope Pius VII. By request, M. Spina was sent to Paris by the Holy See. For a long time, nothing could be done. Tired of lengthy discussions, Talleyrand and de Hauterive were ordered by the First Consul to draw a treaty which was offered for the signature of M. Spina. This draft contained substantially the terms of the Concordat, which was signed by both parties on the 15th of July,

1801.

The Pope accepted it because he could do no better; Bonaparte did not ask for greater concessions because he wanted to come to a prompt agreement. It is likely that both of them hoped later on to perfect the pact. This was apparent in that the Concordat was followed by the "Articles Organiques."

The "Articles Organiques" constituted the modus vivendi of the French clergy in France. Since there has been a Minister of Churchs, this minister has to rule over the church's tenants according to certain laws. It has been said that priests became government officers and were therefore liable to government control. Paid by the French government and living within its jurisdiction, they might be ruled spiritually by Popes; but they were not thereby absolved from obedience to the State. For many years

no substantial objections were made to these Articles.

However, the Popes never recognized them formally. They were communicated to M. Caprara, who sent a copy of the rules to Pius VII. The latter's reply shows that Rome accepted them but hoped that they would never be applied as a whole.

Indeed, under Napoleon I., Louis XVIII., Charles X., Louis Philippe, the second Empire, France and Rome did not develop any disagreement. The kings and emperor needed the support of the Church and the middle class was not anti-catholic.

The Republic born after the FrancoPrussian war was at first too fully occupied in other directions to dispute with Rome. When it finally came to this question, the government faced two alternatives: whether to maintain the Concordat or let the Church live alone and become, as formerly, a power in the State. They decided for the former.

But Frenchmen were sore, when, depressed by the Franco-Prussian war's disasters and in bad need of troops, they recalled from Rome the few soldiers left there, Garibaldi took possession of the city and the papal court made fun of the French misfortunes.

It was at this time that Freemasonry rapidly gained ground among the "Bourgeoisie" and with the ascendence of the "Bourgeoisie" became a factor in the nation's affairs. Church and Freemasonry do not go together in Latin countries. The latter in France is atheist and antagonistic to the Catholic Church. To these leaders is due the new law.

Foreigners are surprised that the government could enact such legislation in a Catholic country. Travelers and tourists go through Paris and see churches crowded. But Paris is not France and in spite of the large attendance at the services, thousands are not attending. The strength of religion is with the women and with the royalist and Bonapartist parties. The workingman has no re

ligion. Often he hates priests. The peasants are not very different, and except in a few sections, such as Bretagne and Vendée, the churches are deserted. Catholicism remains because of woman's influence. Even the leaders of the nation have Catholic wives. Children are brought up by the mother and to their eighteenth or twentieth year sons go to church and then each one does as he pleases. In the same family you may see a devout Catholic and a thirty-third degree Freemason.

We must say also that, although France enjoys a universal suffrage in elections, officers of the army and navy do not vote as long as they remain in active service. And many people who shout loudly against the "horrible" leaders, are very careful

not to vote.

With such conditions confronting them it required the diplomacy of a Leo XIII. and Rampolla to deal with the French government.

When they were superseded, trouble began. To the new secretary of state, Bishop Merry Del Val, is due the rupture. Truly the French leaders waited only for the occasion. The law against Congregations was endorsed by the nation when the actual deputies were elected. It is only proper to say that even Catholics at this time recognized that there were too many convents, but they never thought of the great numerical increase of monks and nuns.

But what of this new law?

In America we think it is good for both Church and State to keep them separated. But in France this would not work in favor of the Church.

First of all, Frenchmen are not accus

tomed to pay direct tax for the support of religion, and the new associations must be composed of laymen. Of course, for a few years to come the rich Catholic will pay for himself and many more. He will pride himself in showing to the government that its support was not needed to maintain in the future what exists to-day. But he is French, that rich man, and within five years he will think the burden too heavy. He may then be willing to pay his share, but no more. And this will be the beginning of the end.

Thousands of churches will be closed for lack of funds.

Then what becomes of St. Peter's Pence? France was a heavy contributor to it; but now French Catholics have their own burdens. Charity begins at home and the Popes will have to look somewhere else for money.

Is, then, the new law partisan? Yes, it is, and it will work havoc amongst the Catholics who do not even retain the churches. These belong to the State and municipalities, to be rented from them if the church is willing to do so.

What will be the outcome of the crisis? It is hard to tell at present. Church-andState struggles last for years and when we think that the former is down forever, it rises stronger than before. Freemason

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »