The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 1908. RAILWAY NATIONALISATION.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 158, 28 March 1908, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 1908. RAILWAY NATIONALISATION.

In the House, of Commons the other clay ail interesting discussion took place upon a motion affirming that time had come to consider how far the alleged evils of .private ownership of .•railways'' could be remedied', by State purchase of>the railways. Most of the discussion .\yas concerned ".with; the economics of J, railway .management, and, of course, there was disagreement upon every poiiit.' The most striking feature.of-the debate was Mr. Bonar Law's presentation of the political argument against the nationalisation ,of the British dines) and it . is anv argument worthy of attention, in this coun- ; try, where the extension, of the State's enterprises, annually swells, the enor-. 1 mous ' number of State employees.. , What lie feared from, railway nationalisation was its'injurious effect upon the country's political institutions. - Tho danger of all Governments (he said) was corruption; but there was corruption of different kinds, and tho danger to which a democratic community would be liable would ba .introduced into every "constituency if. railway servants were to become tho em- . ployoes of the State.' Ho would not enlarge upon ;this.. ..Every member would realise what the argument meant. He could not imagino there was anybody who had thought unon the subject.. who .would ,not regard with something ■ like horror the possibility of! an organised body in every constituency., putting pressure upon candidates for the improvement of their condition at the of their fellow-citizens. The soundness of Mr. Bonar Law's argument will probably be questioned by nobody. It would.lose its validity, of course, if the process of State nationalisation carried with it the disfranchisement of State employees, but Mr. Bonar ;Law evidently realises that such a safeguard against corruption is impracticable/ As the London "Times" puts it, the doctrine of the disfranchisement of State and municicipal employees is "too strong meat for : the weak stomachs of contemporary politicians of either party;" and this dictum may safely be given a general application. In a proper state of society no person' in receipt of salary or wages from the State, or from a municipality,' should be allowed to have a voice in--the, election of the administrative bodies. He should not be permitted to conjoin the functions of an employee with those of an employer, and that is what a State or municipal employee'does under existing conditions. In New Zealand the centres in which State or municipal employees are strong in numbers, and sufficiently well organised, or sufficiently able to act in concert, are not numerous enough yet to obtain any great leverage in Parliament or on a municipality, exceptionally large as is the proportion of State employees to the whole population. In 'isolated cases the body of State employees has been able successfully to influence a parliamentary election. Many people are aware, .that such a case occurred in a recent parliamentary election in this province. A proposition to disfranchise the employees of the State could not gos-

sibly hope lor success, although most people who see tilings clearly are agreed upon the principle that the power of the employees to put. pressure, upon candidates for personal ends is unfair to the people who do not rely upon th# State for their salaries or wages. It is this principle which prohibits a member of Parliament from voting upon a question directly affect-' ing his own pocket, and which, to give an illustration of current interest, forbids a Mayor or City Councillor to vote or take part in the discussion ' upon any matter in which he is directly or indircctly himself, or through his_ partner, is pecuniarily interested. It is in part because they perceive the danger that lieg in having large classes dependent on the national paymaster aiul general dispenser of privileges, and able ,to control the people in charge of them that Liberals of the old school, amongst whom we count ourselves, look with distaste upon the multiplication of State employees and State tenants. At present there may be little cause of alarm,-but can anybody say that, when the present embryo stage is passed, and the country the Socialistic trend continue —is full of State tenants and State employees, there will be no cause for anxiety ■ amongst 'the people who still remain outside the pale of State employment? ■'■'....