OCR Text |
Show National Topics Interpreted : by William Bruckart Washington. With assurance that Joseph B. Eastman, federal co-ordinator of New Idea on railroads, la go-Buslness go-Buslness Control inS to recom-m recom-m e n d In reports re-ports soon to appear, that there be more stringent regulation of the railroads, it Is to be noted that Washington conversations lately have Included a new idea respecting governmental relations with businesses busi-nesses coming under direct federal fed-eral regulation. The discussion seems to center about some Idea concerning the obligation which government owes whatever business it regulates and whose profits It limits. The talk one hears in many places Is to the effect that if the government, govern-ment, or any government, lays down rules which prohibit a business from reaping the profits that accrue In good years, by the same token It ought to consider some form of compensation com-pensation to that business In the periods of depression through such as we are now passing because It has refused to permit that business to create a huge layer of fat upon which It can feast In the bad years. Advocates of such a theory, of course, have Immediately found opponents. oppo-nents. In other words, two very inn ring, with perhaps the addition i 1 'ln,g alrCnift dustry it admitted that there Is a winingnc ou the part of those lines of eo7 merce to aid the nation In time war. ue Should the government en-, t d.strlbutlon of taxpayers' mone, S offset deficits in the lean years J ponents of the policy say that ' should be headed for an evfc greater bureaucracy than has be! set up to accomplish recovery der the present administration. C viously, many business men will t be in favor of further extension -,i bureaucracy. They have had th.'r fill of bureaucracy under the cod ' The form of assistance is ano"' er problem. If it were not in ('I form of a money payment direct i the businesses concerned, then t'rl subsidy must be worked out on i'! other basis. It has been suggest that the regulations themseh might be used to enable some turns not now available. One t '"' ory advanced was that the regu.f tlons should be flexible and that irr the lean years there bo some rel ation of the restrictions so tlmt regulated business might proci'PT more freely In operation. Another thought heard is f,-f( there should be consideration el' I aennue schools of thought have developed de-veloped and although the question Is nowhere near a solution nor Is It likely that the forthcoming session of congress will even approach an answer, one can hear arguments pro and con on the point most anywhere the subject Is broached. The proponents of the theory that the government owes an obligation obliga-tion to those businesses which It has regulated within an inch of their lives contend that investors which means the public who own shares of stock are being discriminated discrim-inated against by their own government. gov-ernment. Their claim Is that a business busi-ness cannot survive unless it is enabled en-abled to store away profits of the good years against which It may draw when the prolonged economic depressions strike. The result is, according to tills argument, that unless un-less the fat is stored away after the manner of the bear in preparation for winter, Investors can expect only to see their savings destroyed from time to time, and this with the sanction of their own government. govern-ment. In opposition to this new theory of relationship between government and business, one hears the usual to competing businesses such example, as Is the condition' " . tween the railroads and the hi "I way users. It Is of record ' course, that trucks and busses' i!! privately owned vehicular trf" use national and state highwiiK? built out of taxpayers' money i they do so with the very minlir'10,1 of taxation. The railroads, as c petitors of these lines, have no s,m beneficent attitudes displayed 1 13 ward them by the government wlr m at the same time, has been beai down with its regulations. i"'5 . . SI As one looks backward upon i'He' campaign of 1034, the methods . , . ployed by ., Both Parties two major L, Show Weakness tles appf worthy of ;;rpP axuination. Observers In Wash : ton, I believe, are of the opir that the campaign developed an ff0 standing circumstance, namely, f the Democrats lack defensive f100 f ity and the Republicans h shown an utter Inability as an :;a fensive party. . 'ms In all of the debates and 'M speeches and the statem-'ls fo a" pnmlnff fi-nm nflnrlMntnc .in ohlffOUl denouncements of the sins of the railroads and the . public utilities, but one also hears complaint that if the federal government should embark upon a policy of compensating compen-sating those businesses which it regulates, reg-ulates, it might be placing a premium pre-mium on mismanagement and even downright crookedness. It Is argued ar-gued likewise that the federal government gov-ernment must not use taxpayers' money In this manner nor that It should employ the policy of compensation, com-pensation, as that amounts to a subsidy. sub-sidy. At any rate a new field has been opened. On each side are to be found vigilant and virulent defenders defend-ers and from this time it is made to appear that congress Is eventually eventu-ally going to be compelled to decide de-cide how far this regulation of business busi-ness can properly go. From all of the arguments here, It would seem that each side has solid ground upon which to stand. It may be possible that from this controversy something In the way of a new economic eco-nomic policy will develop. The Roosevelt administration' has gone farther than any other In history in Its regulation of business, and there are those who believe that a reaction Is due. If that be the case, then it appears logical at least that the two opposing forces may bring about a compromise that will be favorable fa-vorable to general business, which 18 Sllblect to rpp-nlntlnn on onoKln side, there Is proof of the conclii;"18 above reached. Some poIIII8C01 writers in Washington and s'iDlitl1 political leaders take the posi:r 1 that when the Democrats were 'it's to the necessity of laying dow'Jl fresh program, they failed on -rftion job. They gave the Impressiori politicians running largely on don't mentum. 'eipos The. minority party, If such an a. Republicans may be called, ;.ied B wholly unable to take ndvantagimean known vulnerable points in fell. Democratic armor. The net re was obviously that there was ml, stu haranguing and much mud-sllnniy, a In what should have be;n real cposinc tional Issues, but nothing came a The campaign, therefore, has ( ;t mv onstrated in my opiniosi the i,, for a strong minority party whej, gu, that party be Republican or D(;;i;e(j cratic. The party in power n'car(s sarily Is on the spot because lj WQn' charged with the responsibility 00j government. It is the functloi v0ff the minority party to criticize iorrow offer counter proposals. The 1 1, astute politicians see that condl and, I believe, are at a loss what it means for the future. -,0 1() ' ' - See?' The federal communications c mission, one of the new agencies ;fl n up by the Ro Favor velt admlnl, Mergers as a Pe';;a bnv . those who place their savings in stocks or bonds of such utilities to feel reasonably secure about some sort of annual return. Solution of this question of equity between the government and the businesses which Solution U regulates Is not Not Simple as simple as it may s-uperficially appear. For example, the question Is put forward whether It is possible pos-sible to evolve any method of measuring, meas-uring, even roughly, the extent of the public obligation. It is likwNc necessary to determine in advance of a final answer to the question whether the past inequalities and past treatment of public utilities Is the factor to be considered. There Is a question whether the government govern-ment is openly to assume a direct voice In the management of properties proper-ties which It regulates if there Is a compensating arrangement to pro-tret pro-tret Imestors In those businesses -hen, It goes Into the question of government ownership 0r government govern-ment control of private Indu.-.tr.v Some of the advocates vt this program of compensation call or-'''"'" or-'''"'" to the public i,ec-wUy Mr m-;rnt..,mn..e of service, such hS the ;"".(! supply, rr example. In "'' ' -' f II. e railroads and shlp- nation's regulatory structure,-preparing structure,-preparing to ask congress for amendment of the communicaty, ac act of 1934 enabling it to app:-;j e mergers. Of course, the Partlc:J'iit t problem involved In the comm." " 8 cations program Is the questloi." ; mergers of such gigantic corp, PUl's Hons as the Western Union the Postal Telegraph companies,.' Jed some of the radio companies. , Wi Implications and the potential rou of this movement, however,.,, J1 v; much further. ';!aDce i ' It Is too early to attempt a l,;erce cast of congressional opinion on. open communications proposal but I 'shad an opportune time to consider veered, may happen if congress should;' the , prove tills step toward crentloi;J mind single businesses for single Ijoln g of service In this country. Th It Is regarded also as !nteres,'eased , to examine the effect upon 'jaore w country If it were to he suhje Jrtl.( to a well regulated monopoly oi n10m the business' In that line suetQig Jagt has occurred in the case of the proy Telephone system. J(la Some members ef the coiiimls'ftifcll and Its staff feel that a merge ' 1 tlia large telegraph companies, Instance, would result In estnb 1 ment. of a more closely knit work of telegraph lines and of than now exist I. C. W patera Newspaper Unit". 5D.Klrl r"-M, t , |