Omaha daily bee., 1892-11-13
ELECTRIC LIGHT OWNERSHIP
Advantages and oheapness Of Municipal
Control.
PUBLIC BENEFITS VERSUS MONOPOLY
Marked Sentiment In Favor OF Government
Management-Instructiv statistics
--EStortionato Prices OF Eleo-
tric Lighting.

victor Rrs,,rdtcr m y. y Independent
The movement toward municipal owuer-
ship and control of public electric lighting
has. during the past two years, assumed un-
expected proportions; that is, unexpected by
all save those who had previously invest-
gated the underlying forces leading 20 such
u result. Additional towns have set up
municipal plants and others have enlarged
and extended their service. Tho phenome-
non Is no longer localized. 1t extends to
almost every state and territory In the union,
and complete list of towns owning and
operating their own electric lighting
plants for at least year
would, under conservative estimate,
approximate $50, while many moro are at
present providing such installations. The
mayors Of no small number of the larger
citles-Ncw York. Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Omaha, New Haven, Atanta-have dis
cussed in their annual messages the advlsa-
oilty OF the governmental assumption of
these undertakings. And all this has oc-
Cured in tho face Of powerful and persist
ent opposition from the interested electric
lighting CORPORATIONS. Its explanation must
DC sought in the economic principles which
lie AT the foundation of the movement
Elements Involved In the Discussion.
The arguments In favor OF municipal
changed. They are in substance the same
as have before been set forth in the lnde-
pendent, namely, that electric lighting is one
OF the monopolies of service whose rates
are necessarily precluded from the
regulative influence of competition;
that 1t requires the exclusive use OF u por-
tion OF the public streets; that combination
with the other monopolies of service con
duces to cheapness; aud that the unearned
increment resulting from the natural growth
OF the city should inure to tho benefit of the
whole community instead of TO the fran
chised corporation. These propositions hold
now as they did before and would scarcely
lustify rehearsiDg, were II not that they arc
being continually attacked and as continually
Illustrated by now facts. There have been
numerous recent investigations of the sub
1ect by different official bodies, varying in
accuracy and in scientific value. Two have
been instigated by tho government at Wash
ington and, as far as they so, are the most
complete and trustworthy that have vet
been made. From these shall make few
excerpts The one is embodied in a report
OF the engineer commissioner of the District
contained IN Fifty-tirst congress, second ses-
sion, senate miscellaneous document So, the
other the very recent report of the electrical
commission printed IN Flfty-second congress,
nrst session, house executive document 15
From the former we learn that in twenty
four of the largest American cities, nominal
1000 candle power arc lights burning practl-
cally al OF every night cost the municipali-
uo' S'iV por iahlp Der ahhun ior tue year
ending December, 1890. the average number
IN use being G2S.3 On the other hand, by
including q large number of smaller places,
where, however, similar conditions existed,
the corresponding figure for the average con-
tract price in l4S towns and cities was re-
duced to Sl2l. ~ per arc light per annum.
AT that time Washington was paying 1919,
baltimore. thirty odd miles distant Sl21 75
Kansas City paid s20O.75, while St. Louis
was charged S74.95
Comparisons of Cost.
For the statistics of cities owning munici-
pal plants we must turn to the report of the
electrical commission, where very complete
data have been compiled, although from only
a limited number of towns. A summary of
the.tables there presented is all that can be
given. IL is as follows:
LAMPS ONLY