The Dominion FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1931. A NATIONAL PRINCIPLE VINDICATED

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 137, 6 March 1931, Page 8

The Dominion FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1931. A NATIONAL PRINCIPLE VINDICATED

“I am firmly opposed to the Government entering any business the purpose of which is to enter into competition with our citizens. It is a negation of the ideals on which our civilisation is p aced ‘ With this observation President Hoover attached his veto to the Congress proposal for Government control of the Muscle hydro-electric and nitrate fertiliser works in Alabama. as me Senate failed to over-ride the veto, the measure was killed. This particular piece of legislation raises two fundamental Questions. On the one hand, it has been argued that hydro-electi.c power, being derived from a source possessed by the nation, should be marketed by the nation for the nation. In support of this argument it has been alleged that the power trusts have been seLing to the public at an advance of fifteen times the cost of produc ion. This margin of profit would be saved to the consumer it the State were to take over the control of a supply which, it is contended, should be as free as air and water because its universal utility has made it almost as indispensable in modern domestic economy. On the other hand it is held that the intrusion of the State m the region of private enterprise is a violation of the constitutional declaration of individual rights. . , • Whether Government control of hydro-electric power in the United States would be to the advantage of the consumer is a matter for argument. Our own experience—and Australia s of. State industrial enterprises has failed to convince us that the socialisation of public utilities has accomplished what has been claimed for it, namely, cheaper and better service. Theoretically, it sounds attractive and. practicable. In operation, wasteful overhead and inefficiency have destroyed the margin of profit which the public expected would’ be returned to it by way of cheaper rates. Wc, have now arrived at the point where we are entitled to ask whether we would- not have been better served, ■or at least as well served, by private enterprise, with the additional satisfaction of knowing that we had no capital liability. . . . That, however, is not the principle of action upon which President Hoover has taken his stand. “I hesitate,” he says, “to contemplate the future of our institutions, our Government and our country if the preoccupation of its officials be no longer the promotion of justice, equality, and opportunity, but be devoted to barter in markets. That is not Liberalism—-it is degeneration.” The President here is emphasising the principle of equality of opportunity embodied in the Constitution of the United States. Upon . this principle has been built up ■ the intense individualism which -is so pronounced a characteristic of American citizenship. In British communities there has been a Socialist tendency to emphasise the importance of the herd, and obscure the individual. “There is,” declares Mr. Philip S. Richards in a Nineteenth Century article, “a pressing need to reassert the dignity and the paramount worth of the individual man—to insist that individuality, and not hygienic or economic efficiency, is the ultimate standard by which to judge a civilisation. We have by tacit consent given up the pursuit of individual perfection.” .If this pursuit is to be resumed, it is clear that Government must retire from those wasteful activities and experiments in Socialist legislation, and unnecessary regulation of private businesses, which frustrate the legitimate aspirations of enterprising citizens, and baulk their zeal for endeavour. Otherwise, we shall become a shapeless herd of mediocrities.