Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-03-21
Natural Monopolies-Again.

Monopoly" rs word that has become
unpopular. IL Is not an uncommon thing
for party platforms TO denounce monopolies
aud moBopolIsts. In fact the word has &C.
quired 80 bad reputation that it Is fire.
quentIy employed to describe tbs,owner OF a
large manufacturing establishment. There
IL much in a name.
But Professor Ely says there are natural
monopolies. These will be beneficent II
artificial competition Ia not allowed. A
monopoly may be considered as natural, IN
Professor ELr's sense OF that word, when It
would injure the community 10 allow CON-
petition with II. Gss-works. for example,
may he owned by persons or by muncipai-
ties. II owned by persons and free compe.
tition is allowed. there are likely TO DO In
every large city two or more plants. These
plants cost much money. IL requires twice
as much money 10 operate two plants as TO
operate one. This either occasions useless
expenditure OF money, or else all OF the
plants except one perish from competition.
The remaining one then has 1t in
Ifs power to compensate itself for
the losses caused by competition by raising
the price OF gas. The public are thus at the
mercy OF the monopoists. Wbyi Because,
saws Professor ELY, gas.works constitute
natural monopoly and should be owned and
operated by the city. Why natural mo-
nopoly? Because there ought 10 be no
more than one plant and one set OF employ
ees ia one city, and II this one plant be pri-
vate property the public will be fleeced.
IL will he seen at once that II Professor
ELY's reasoning is sound, 1t applies TO cleo
tric-lighting as well as TO gas-lighting. The
city ought TO own both its eectric-plant
and Its gas>plsnt. Otherwise, the respective
owners will pool their issues and the public
will suffer.
Professor ELY lays down these PROPOSE
tons as be would proposition in mathemst-
les. He has no doubt on the subject, and is
willing TO stake his reputation upon the
truth OF his theories or teachings. The city
OF Dunkirk. New York, lights its own streets
with electric lights. The cost OF each arc
light per night, running all night and every
night, is l3A cents. The plant cost $l3 33S.7l.
The length OF the line is about eleven miles.
Dunkrk owns and operates its water plant,
aud a great saving comes from The city's
owning and operating both plants. We
unote from a letter from the Mayor OF Dun
kirk
mo extra labor is required but llneman,
for whose services we pay Sf5 per month.
The same engineers, iremen, and superin-
teudent operate both plants, and the same
bOiler.pOwer j. used. ! saw the superin'
tendent this morning after the receipt OF
your letter, and be assures me the cost per
night can be reduced below 1874 cents.
The cItv Of Chicago, III, hiss introduced a
pisnt and furnishes electric lights along the
river.front. There has been some extra ex-
pen>e on account OF burial OF wires-and,
by the way, there never Is any difficulty In
burning electric wires owned and operated
by Government either here or where-but
the cost per arc light Of 2000-candle power is
reported as about 10 csBts a night, lights
burning all night. The city Is greatly
pleased, aud il s proposed 10 extend the
plant during the present year."
Paineyile aud Xenia, o.; Champaign,
Ill. aud Eastou, Pa, are also cities which
own and operate their electrIc-light works
We quote Professor ELY:
"When the management OF natural mo-
nopoies IL direct we have on the other hand
a harmony OF public and private interests,
an awakeued public spirit, an intensified
municipal soli-consciOusness, II | may use the
expression. 49, have noticed the disastrous
effects described from private works. Com
pare Jamestown, n. y, with Fred0nia, n.
Y, the former With private water-works, the
latter with public works; or LockpOrt, n.
Y, With Dunkirk, n. Y, the former with
private electric-lightlng works and the latter
with public tric-lightng works, and you
will observe those phenomena which have
described"
al have calculated that by the application
OF correct principles ia the treatment OF ma
iural monopOlies we could have reduced
taxes In Baltimore one third, suppose in
New York two thirds, probably in Boston at
least one hail."
DR.. ALBEIT SHAW, OF the Minneapolis Tri-
bune. 4 careful observer. who has visited
England aud attempted to get the secret Of
good municipal governments, said IN an in
terview:
81 suppose Glasgow owns its gas and
waterl"
Certainly; and so ought every munIci. |
pality. All the monopolies OF service, such |
as gas, water, trans, aud the Ike SHOULD be- |
long TO the community, and experience has |
shown that they can be administered with |
quite a. much freedom from assumption a.
when they were left In the hands Of private |
adventures, The great difficulty OF muni- |
cpsl finance hitherto has been that II has
relied far too much upon rates, and rate is |
always an unpopular means OF raising money. |
Ii. on the other hand, the community kept |
The monopolies OF service in its own hands |
It would Toe able IN many cases ultimately TO |
raise a magnificent revenue without having !
on rate at ALL"
II think the experience OF Glasgow is |
full OF lessons for our pew communities |
that are sprIngiug up ali over the United |
States"
All this Is very interesting. We com.
mend II to the consideration OF anybody in |
Richnond who would have this city damage |
herself irreparsbly by surrendering the con.
troll OF her natural monopoes--gas supply |
aud water suppiy-to private persons or