Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-02-03
MunicipRl COnduita.

FROM the Electrical World
That the usual objections urged against
municipalities entering into the business of
supplying water gas or electricity do not
apply to public ownership of electric con-
Quits and subways is becoming to be recog-
nized Recently the Cambridge, Mass.
board Of aldermen requested the mayor to
petition for such legislation as will enable
cities and towns 10 construct and maintain
conduits and man holes in their respective
streets, for the purpose of carrying wires
and cables for the transmission OF cleo
tricity; that the companies and individuals
now maintaining overhead wires and cables
be required to place their wires and cables
in the conduits built by the city or town,
and remove their overhead construction in
all streets provided with conduits, and that
such companies and individuals shall pay
to the city or town a rental that will insure
not less than 10 per cent upon the amount
invested in the conduits The question thus
preached is aside from any advanced views
In regard to the extent to which municipali-
ties may extend their functions and rather
one as to whether electric companies should
be compelled to submit themselves to the
mercy of a private monopoly when they are
required by the public to adopt a certain
method OF installing their wires. 1t would
on the other hand, seem to he the duty of
cities to provide equal ami untrammeled
facilities for those whom they compel to
adopt this means of electrical distribution
duty which cannot be properly dischar ged
by an Intermediary whose object is not ac-
commodation. but profit. The principle at
stake Is more nearly akin to that involved
In the maintenance of public highways, and
in its application there seems 70 be no rea-
son for introducing the element of private
monopoly. The conditions are not the same
as those concerned in the ownership of civ
r., r.
latter case 1t Is the question Of the supply
of commodity. and the continuous opera
ton of manufacturing plant, which nay
result in abuses If in the hands of a munich
pallty. Better service may be given through
private ownership, and in case of ineffi-
cheney the entire public is affected and has
the power to at once apply the remedy. On
the other hand, a conduit IL a structure
and when once laid requires little or no at
tentlon. The contract is a forced One as far
as the users are concerned, while in an cleo
trio lighting monopoly the consumer can or
der out his lights and combination of con-
sumers can force reasonable treatment. In
the one case the parties directly affected are
only the conduit monopoly and the electrical
company or companies compelled to use the
oonduits, with only the politicians or the un-
certainties Of legal technicalities TO protect
the latter, while in the other the entire
PUBIC serves as check against unfair
treatment In other words, there is a de-
cided difference between a monopoly to
which the public willingly submits itself
and over which 1t retains practical control.
and one which 1t acccrds to a second party
10 De exercised by the latter over third
party 1t may be said that the rights of
the users of conduits will be defined by law
and may be enforced by them whether the
owner Is private company or a municipali-
ty, but experience has shown that while In
the former case technicalities Of law and a
pull may intervene, in the latter public
opinion will tend to force equitable treat
ment aside from technicalities 1t thus
q anti ra al 70 to-
trio light and power companies to have the
ownership Of electrical conduits and sub
ways vested in the public and not in
of the public itself to retain the control of
its streets. and besides earn the continuous
profit that otherwise 1t would donate 10
private individuals, whose only considerable
active function would not extend beyond the
period of installation.