St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-07-03
MINNEAPOLIS.
BENEFITS OF COMPETITION.

In the street railway question which
the city of Minneapolis is about to de-
eide, and which is to be considered by a
council committee to-day. there enters
but@one terse consideration-tha OF
business. 1t is not matter of senti-
ment whether new franchises be grant
ed and to whom, but simple business
proposition, to come before business
men. A franchise is nothing more nor
less than a privilege or permission, and
III granting franchise the city is con-
veying or bestowing no rights other
than those which lie within the view OF
permission or a permit. Anderson u
Douglass ask for a permit to construct
and operate transit line, in which
permission they not only do not request
or require Of the city any bonus or
bond, sewers or grades, but, on the con-
trary, offer to indemnify the city in any
manner desired. This desired franchise
is opposed by the street railway COM
pany of which Mr.. Lowry is the head,
on the ground that he holds an eXclu-
sive franchise, supported by arguments
and met by cOunter-argumentS with
which the public is entirely familiar.
This is about the situation.
If it were simply question of in
creased transit facilities, other things
being equal, it would be of no moment
to the public whether the new franchise
were given OF whether the new line
were operated by the old company: but
that is not the question. The meat in
the entire affair and the point which
now interests the people of Minneapolis,
and through them equally the people of
St. Paul, is whether it will not be ben
eft, solid and enduring, and benefit to
which they are entitled, to break the
monopoly feature of street railways in
the past and introduce and test the re-
suits of competition. 1t is not proposed
to take from the old company any rights
it may properly and legally claim, but
to give to new company an equal ia
cility, and between the upper and the
neither millStOnes of competition grind
out lasting public benefits.
At the mere mention of competition,
see what benefits have already sprung
into sight. A few weeks ago Mr..
Lowry, in response to the demand to
substitute a cable for steam on First ave-
nue., proposed to construct the cable if
the city would complete certain grading
and sewers, and give bond to idemnify
in case of loss by lowering the Hastings
IL Dakota track; now he is not only
willing, but anxious, without bond or
qualification, to put in the cable, and to
put it in in the least time possible. A
few weeks ago every demand for i'm
proved facilities on existing lines was
met with Instructions; now Mr.. Lowry
comes forward with voluntary offer to
leave no step untaken that will in any
way meet the public demand for i'm
proved facilities.
These are benefits that come at the
mere thought-the shadow-of competi-
ton. What lasting benefits might we
not expect if we secured the substance,
the actual realization OF active competi-
ton?
Mr.. Lowry has already published an
that he proposed to build two cable lines,
but to do it the money must be contrib
uted by employees. or their wages must
be reduced to produce the necessary
show of profits to make new bonds
marketable. No such necessity has
shown itself in the Anderson d Doug
lass proposition, and the necessity in
the Lowry case has recently disap-
Feared. Another evidence of the ben
eftS of competition. and one that labor
will not be slow to appreciate.
Mr.. Lowry also placed the value of
his franchise in Minneapolis at about
four million dollars. 1t was ranked at
that figure in the schedule of assets
submitted at the time of the recent
strike. 1t appears, then, that the
city has given Mr.. Lowry a privi-
lege which he values at S4,000,O00,
and for which there was absolutely
no eQuiValent-a gift the value of which
has not been dependent upon the thus
far eXclusiveness Of the privilege. If
there are further gifts in this line. they
should be distributed where they would
do the most good-public good. There
is no disposition to abrogate one right
or privilege which the old company is
entitled to enjoy; there is no sentiment
against Mr.. Lowry in the management
of the vast interests under his control;
there is simply the plain and strong
business idea of giving right of way
through the city to anew company, with
view to introducing the valuable eIe-
ment of competition in the interest and
to the benefit of the general public.
And that is what the committee will
consider. Street transit is not an in
FAINT industry. 1t needs not the protec-
ton of monopoly, but it badly needs The
mspiritlng Influences of active, ener-
getic competition.
IIIYI MI LCArHICAL