themselves the revolutionary aim—'The Railways for the Railwaymen.'
He adds: "The technical incompetence of the bureaucratic administration has demoralized the system and brought about a growing yearly deficit in the returns. Innumerable sinecures and well-paid offices were established; but the State neglected the technical side, and with increased financial burden came greater confusion in the working.
"On the other hand, through their organization the workers have been eagerly learning details of every kind of work necessary for the proper effective managing of the railways, and now they seek to get control over their administration, so as to manage the railways for the nation. They propose to do this as a coöperative society, which would be made up of the members of their union. . . ."
He quotes conservative economists of world-wide reputation and experts such as Professor Vilfredo Pareto who have declared that the one practical solution of the trouble is, since private ownership is a public nuisance, and state ownership a veritable disaster, to entrust the State railways to the coöperative enterprise of the organized railway-men. It is further maintained that the State has taken the first step toward this end in its law of 1911, which opens the way for a partnership with the unions, so far as to give their own elected representatives a voice in management. "The Government," he says, "thus proved its recognition of the fact that it cannot run the railway industry efficiently without the direct coöperation and advice of the employees."
